BANCROFT 
LIBRARY 

<> 

THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  CALIFORNIA 


n 


gy$: 


7^  XJ 


V  xrT7"~v  vtj 


^        r 


TRUE  SUCCESSION 


IN 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY 


OF   THE 


CHURCH  OF  JESUS  CHRIST 
OF  LATTER  DAY  SAINTS. 


BEING  A  REPLY  TO  ELDER  B.  H.  ROBERTS  ON 
"SUCCESSION   IN  THE   PRESIDENCY   OF   THE   CHURCH/ 


ELDER  HEMAN  -C.  SMITH, 
// 

Church  Historian. 


"While  I  have  powers  of  body  and  mind;  while  water  runs  and  grass  grows; 
while  virtue  is  lovely,  and  vice  hateful;  and  while  a  stone  points  out  a  sacred 
spot  where  a  fragment  ef  American  liberty  once  was;  I  or  my  posterity  will 
plead  the  cause  of  injured  innocence,  .  .  ." — Joseph  Smith,  Times  and  Seasons, 
vol.  5,  p,  395. 


THIRD   EDITION. 


LAMONI,  IOWA: 

PUBLISHED  BY  THE  BOARD  OF  PUBLICATION  OF  THE 

REORGANIZED  CHURCH  OF  JESUS  CHRIST 

OF  LATTER  DAY  SAINTS. 

1908.    ' 


0%* 


Copyrighted  by  the  BOARD  OF  PUBLICATION  of  the  Reor- 
ganized Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints,  Publishers 
and  Proprietors,  in  the  year  1898,  in  the  office  of  the  Librarian 
of  Congress  at  Washington,  D.  C. 


HERALD  PUBLISHING  HOTJ8K, 
LAMONI,  IOWA. 


BANCROFT 
LIBRARY 

PREFACE. 

THE  only  apology  needed  for  the  appearance  of  this  work 
is,  that  we  have  been  attacked,  and  it  is  both  a  privilege 
and  a  duty  to  respond.  Some  have  thought  the  church 
was  too  slow  and  should  have  replied  long  ago.  But  had 
we  rushed  into  print  when  the  work  of  Mr.  Roberts  first 
appeared,  we  would  have  done  so  unadvisedly.  We  did  not 
know  whether  he  was  authorized  to  write  or  not;  nor  did 
we  know  whether  the  church  he  represented  would  indorse 
his  positions;  hence  no  one  was  appointed  to  reply;  thougfi 
it  was  not  lost  sight  of,  and  several  of  the  elders  upon 
their  own  responsibility  were  carefully  collecting  material 
for  use  in  such  reply.  Now  that  the  representatives  of  the 
church  in  Utah,  both  in  Europe  and  America,  have  made 
it  their  chief  weapon  of  attack  and  defense,  we  think  the 
opportune  time  has  come,  for  they  are  thus  pledged  to  its 
support.  Further,  we  have  the  direct  testimony  of  Mr. 
Roberts  that  the  First  Presidency  in  Utah  indorsed  his 
work.  The  book  was  copyrighted  in  February,  1894. 

In  the  latter  part  of  the  year  1895  Mr.  Roberts,  together 
with  Moses  Thatcher,  fell  under  the  displeasure  of  church 
authorities  for  his  political  actions;  while  under  the  ban  of 
disapproval  he  was  interviewed,  and  the  interview  pub- 
lished in  the  Salt  Lake  Tribune  for  October  14,  1895.  The 
following  is  an  extract  from  the  interview: — 

STATEMENT  BY  EGBERTS. 
CLAIMS  THAT  HE  CONFRONTS  A  GRAVE  CRISIS. 

The  following  authorized  statement  by  B.  H.  Roberts,  In  the 
form  of  an  interview,  was  given  out  at  the  Democratic  State 
headquarters  last  evening. 

Being  asked  for  his  views  upon  the  present  political  situation, 
Mr.  Roberts  said: — 


PREFACE. 

•'I  have  always  regarded  myself  as  properly  respectful  and 
attentive  to  church  authority.  In  my  labors  in  the  church, 
whether  in  missionary  or  literary  affairs.  I  have  always  con- 
sulted with  the  presidency  when  communication  was  possible; 
and  their  wishes  have  been  respectfully  followed.  All  the 
manuscripts  of  tracts  and  books  of  which  I  am  the  author,  that 
have  been  written  in  advocacy  or  defense  of  the  Mormon  faith 
have  been  invariably  submitted  to  their  personal  inspection  or 
to  the  inspection  of  committees  appointed  by  them." 

This,  then,  fixes  the  responsibility  of  an  indorsement 
upon  the  Presidency;  and  in  meeting  the  issues  discussed 
by  Mr.  Roberts  in  "Succession  in  the  Presidency  of  the 
Church,"  we  are  not  simply  meeting  Mr.  Roberts  alone, 
but  we  are  meeting  the  authorized  positions  of  the  church 
rn  Utah  upon  the  issues  involved. 

In  addition  to  this  Mr.  Roberts  is  one  of  the  seven  Presi- 
dents of  Seventy,  a  leading  minister,  a  popular  lecturer, 
and  an  author  of  no  mean  repute  among  his  fellows,  being 
the  author  of  the  "Life  of  John  Taylor,"  "Outlines  of 
Ecclesiastical  History,"  "The  Gospel,"  and  other  publi- 
cations. , 

Having  then  located  our  contestants  and  estimated  the 
strength  of  their  position,  we  advance  to  the  examination 
confident  of  the  final  triumph  of  the  right  wherever  found; 
and  send  forth  this  little  book  with  a  humble  prayer  that 
the  erring  may  learn  wisdom  and  the  darkened  mind 
receive  light.  We  wish  here  to  gratefully  acknowledge 
the  assistance  rendered  us  by  valuable  suggestions  given 
us  by  several. 

With  much  confidence  we  submit  the  issues  involved  to 
the  careful  investigation  of  an  indulgent,  but  discerning 

public. 

THE  AUTHOR. 


CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  1. 

Basic  Prediction  —  Rigdon  Slandered  —  Exonerated  —  A 
Fraud— Meeting  of  August  8— Woodruff  Against  the 
Record — Resolution  of  August  8 5 

CHAPTER  2. 

William  Smith — Slandered  by  Roberts — Suspended  From 
Office  —  Restored  —  Sustained  —  Ordained  a  Patriarch — 
Highly  Commended  —  Roberts  Errs  Concerning  Him— 
Preaches  Lineal  Priesthood — Brighamites  Expel  Him— 
Lucy  Smith  et  al.  Considered 15 

CHAPTER  3. 

Wight  and  Miller— Wight's  Character— Roberts'  Blunder- 
Wight  Goes  to  Wisconsin — His  Record — His  Followers — 
Galveston  News'  Tribute— Miller— His  Reason  for  Leav- 
ing Former  Associations — Hewett's  Letter 21 

CHAPTER  4. 

Strang— Challenges  Taylor  and  Hyde— Their  Reply— Rob- 
erts' Unmanly  Attack 26 

CHAPTER  5. 

History  of  Reorganization— Briggs'  Priesthood— Twelve  at 
Nauvoo— Roberts'  Sarcasm — Piercy  on  Smith  Family — 
President  Smith's  Pledge— Roberts'  Philosophy 28 

CHAPTER  6. 

Wight's  Testimony— Goes  to  Wisconsin— Roberts'  Theory 
False- Smith  and  Wight  Teach  Lineal  Priesthood— 
Strangite  Resolution — "Young  Joseph's"  Blessings — His 
Statement  —  Revelation  of  1841  —  Joseph's  Blessing — 
Whitehead's  Testimony— Testimony  of  Emma  Smith— G. 
J.  Adams  on  Lineage  —  Carter's  Testimony  —  Witnesses 
Not  Impeached— Bishop  Miller— Hyrum  Smith's  Ordina- 
tion—Law of  Lineage— Joseph  Smith  on  Descent— Cal- 
houn  Letter  —  Call  by  Revelation  —  Reorganization 
Approved  —  Richards'  Correspondence  —  Ordination  of 
President  Smith— Rights  of  Appointment 86 


4  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  7. 

Roberts'  Discrepancies  —  Twelve  Second  In  Authority- 
Temple  not  Completed — Church  Rejected— Pratt's  Reve- 
lation    67 

CHAPTER  8. 

Keys  of  Authority— Keys  and  Oracles— Pratt's  Revelation — 
Oracles  to  the  Twelve— William  Marks— Roberts'  Climax.  76 

CHAPTER  9. 

The  Twelve— Necessity  for  a  Reorganization — Church  Held 
Together — Building  of  Nauvoo,  etc. — Driven  to  Rocky 
Mountains  —  Joseph's  Prophecy  —  Pratt's  Statement — 
Isaiah's  Prophecy  —  The  Exodus — Seventies  —  Baptism 
For  the  Dead— Temple  Building— Persecution 85 

CHAPTER  10. 

Penrose— Leading  Spirits— Woodruff's  Testimony— Disci- 
pline— Spencer  Interview 101 

CHAPTER  11. 

Brigham  Young  —  His  Career  —  Whereabouts  of  Authori- 
ties— Authorities  not  in  Harmony — Twelve  Sustained — 
Seasonable  Notice  Promised— Growth  of  Presiding  Idea — 
Rebaptism — Reordination  —  Reorganization  — Promise  of 
Seasonable  Notice  Violated  —  Changes  Made  —  Written 
Word  Discarded  —  Adam-God  —  Vulgar  Teaching  —  Con- 
cerning Debts— Expert  Scoundrels— Blood  Atonement — 
Polygamy 114 

CHAPTER  12. 

Points  Established  —  Relevant  Question  —  Acknowledged 
People  of  God— Authority  to  Choose  and  Ordain — Teach- 
ing of  Joseph  Smith's  Successor — Conclusion 132 

CHAPTER  13. 

Correspondence — Letters  of  Long— of  Deseret  News— of  0. 
W.  Penrose — of  Clark— of  Richards— Position  of  Rich- 
ards and  Penrose  —  of  Reorganization  —  Presidency  — 
Apostleship— Presidency  of  High  Priesthood— Josephite 
Contention  Sustained— Penrose  Dilemma— Conclusion. ..  149 


Ynle  Secession  in  Glitch  Presidency, 


CHAPTEE  1. 

• 

BASIC  PREDICTION  —  RIGDON  SLANDERED  —  EXONERATED  —  A 
FRAUD  —  MEETING  OF  AUGUST  8.— WOODRUFF  AGAINST  THE 
RECORD— RESOLUTION  OF  AUGUST  8— RIGDON  ACQUIESCES. 

ME.  ROBERTS  introduces  his  treatise  by  quoting  what 
purports  to  be  language  of  Brigham  Young  used  on 
August  8,  1844,  as  follows:— 

Att  that  want  to  draw  away  a  party  from  the  Church  after  them, 
let  them  do  it  if  they  can,  but  they  will  not  prosper. 

He  assumes  that  this  language  is  prophetic,  then  pro- 
ceeds to  show  its  fulfillment  by  citing  the  failure  of  the 
movements  under  Rigdon,  William  Smith,  J.  J.  Strang, 
and  others.  In  each  of  these  cases  he  repeats  this  pur- 
ported prediction  as  a  climax  to  his  argument.  As  Mr. 
Roberts  has  given  this  purported  statement  so  much 
prominence,  we  will  give  it  a  brief  consideration. 

First,  there  is  nothing  peculiarly  significant  in  the 
statement.  It  is  but  a  sentiment  which  any  person  who 
had  accepted  the  latter-day  work  would  feel  safe  in 
expressing,  and  one  which  was  generally  held  and 
doubtless  frequently  expressed  at  the  time,  and  one  which 
would  have  received  the  unqualified  indorsement  of  Rigdon, 
Strang,  and  every  other  claimant  to  the  Presidency  of  the 
church;  a  sentiment  too  which  we  most  heartily  agree  to, 
for  we  most  assuredly  believe  that  no  man  or  men  will 
prosper  in  leading  away  a  party  from  the  church.  But  the 
questions  were  then  and  are  now,  Where  was  or  is  the 
church?.  Who  represented  or  represents  it?  Instead  of 
meeting  these  questions  squarely  and  fairly,  Mr.  Roberts 
assumes  the  very  point  at  issue  by  supposing  that  the 


6  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

party  led  by  Brigham  Young  and  his  colleagues  was  and  is 
the  accepted  church.  This  is  illogical,  and  contrary  to  all 
rules  of  evidence,  subjecting  its  author  to  an  unenviable 
position  as  a  controversialist. 

In  the  second  place,  if  we  concede  that  the*  statement 
referred  to  was  a  prophetic  one,  the  evidence  of  its  cor- 
rectness is  not  complete  so  long  as  there  are  two  flourish- 
ing organizations  contending  for  recognition;  and  Mr. 
Roberts  admits  that  he  cannot  point  to  a  fulfillment  of  his 
pet  prediction  as  applied  to  the  Reorganization.  He 
says: — 

Now  that  we  draw  to  the  close  of  our  consideration  of  the 
claims  of  this  "Reorganized  church,"  we  cannot  point  to  its 
destruction  as  we  have  done  in  the  case  of  Sidney  Rigdon's 
church,  William  Smith's  church,  and  James  J.  Strang's 
church;  for  the  Reorganized  church  still  exists.  But  its  doom 
is  written  as  distinctly  as  that  of  the  other  false  churches  that 
we  have  seen  crumble  to  pieces  into  shapeless  heaps  of  ruin.  It 
is  only  a  question  of  time  with  regard  to  its  failure.  MENE, 
MENE,  TEKEL,  is  written  upon  its  walls — God  hath  numbered 
thy  kingdom — weighed  in  the  balances— found  wanting! — Suc- 
cession, by  Roberts,  page  99. 

Mr.  Roberts  forms  his  conclusion  in  advance  of  the  evi- 
dence to  support  it,  and  then  utters  a  prediction  of  his 
own  upon  the  fulfillment  of  which  depends  the  correctness 
of  his  basic  prediction,  a  very  unfortunate  and  unsafe 
thing  to  do.  Were  we,  like  he,  to  beg  the  question  by 
assuming,  in  advance  of  the  evidence,  that  the  Reorganiza- 
tion is  accepted  of  God,  we  could  cite  in  confirmation  the 
failure  of  Rigdon,  Smith,  and  Strang,  with  as  much  con- 
sistency as  does  he.  We  could  also  bolster  up  our  conclu- 
sion by  predicting  the  downfall  of  the  church  in  Utah  with 
just  as  much  flourish  and  with  at  least  as  much  prospect 
of  success.  We  hope,  however,  that  if  driven  to  such 
straits  we  will  have  the  honesty  to  withdraw  from  the 
controversy. 

If  this  purported  statement  of  Brigham  Young's  is  a 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  7 

true  prediction,  who  can  now  tell  whether  it  will  be  ful- 
filled in  the  destruction  and  dismemberment  of  the  organi- 
zation of  the  church  in  Utah  or  that  of  the  Reorganization? 

In  the  third  place,  the  evidence  that  Brigham  Young 
made  this  statement  at  the  time  and  place  claimed,  is  not 
very  clear.  Mr.  Roberts  quotes  it  from  the  Millennial 
Star,  volume  25,  page  216,  a  publication  issued  about  1863, 
nearly  twenty  years  after  the  event.  The  account  of  the 
meeting  published  soon  afterward,  in  Times  and  Seasons 
for  September  2,  1844,  does  not  contain  these  words  or 
anything  of  like  purport.  Had  such  a  sentiment  been 
expressed  and  understood  to  have  been  prophetic  in  its 
character,  it  is  but  reasonable  to  suppose  that  some  notice 
of  it  would  have  been  included  in  the  published  account. 
(See  Times  and  Seasons,  Vol.  5,  pp.  637,  638.) 

So  much  then  for  this  so-called  prediction  which  is 
brought  forward  with  so  great  a  flourish  of  trumpets  to 
form  the  basic  thought  of  Mr.  Roberts'  great  effort.  Sum- 
marized, it  amounts  to  this:  (a)  The  statement  if  made  is 
irrelevent  and  of  no  force,  (b)  It  lacks  evidence  of  com- 
plete fulfillment,  (c)  The  evidence  that  such  a  statement 
was  made  is  very  questionable.  If  Mr.  Roberts  has  not 
endeavored  to  make  a  mountain  out  of  a  molehill,  who  ever 
did?  It  was  the  custom  then  for  these  several  factions  to 
prophesy  against  each  other,  and  if  there  was  either  evi- 
dence or  argument  in  it,  we  could  quote  more  remarkable 
predictions  from  Rigdon  and  others  against  the  Brigham- 
ites.  We  have  no  inclination  to  defend  either  the  claims 
or  the  acts  of  Rigdon  and  some  others  referred  to  by  Mr. 
Roberts;  but  in  the  interest  of  common  justice,  and  in 
behalf  of  historic  truth,  we  feel  called  upon  to  notice  some 
of  Mr.  Roberts'  blunders  and  misrepresentations. 

For  the  most  of  Mr.  Roberts'  assertions  regarding  Mr. 
Rigdon  and  what  Joseph  the  Prophet  said  of  him,  he  cites 
no  authority,  and  for  the  remainder  cites  hearsay,  or  pub- 


8  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

lications  issued  many  years  afterward.  He  quotes  largely 
from  the  "History  of  Joseph  Smith"  as  contained  in  the 
Millennial  Star,  volume  25.  How  came  these  events,  trans- 
'piring  after  the  death  of  Joseph  Smith,  to  be  made  a  part 
of  his  history?  Who  wrote  them  as  such,  and  by  what 
authority? 

One  of  the  most  unkind  things  said  of  Mr.  Rigdon  by 
Mr.  Roberts  is  the  following: — 

Moreover,  it  was  known  that  he  was  in  sympathy  and  even  in 
communication  with  some  of  the  avowed  enemies  of  Joseph, 
among  others  with  that  arch  traitor,  John  C.  Bennett,  who  was 
plotting  the  overthrow  of  both  Joseph  and  the  church. — Rob- 
erts, page  2. 

That  Mr.  Rigdon  was  suspected  of  this  is  true,  but  that 
he  was  known  to  be  guilty,  is  very  doubtful.  On  the  con- 
trary, he  was  exonerated.  The  supposed  correspondence 
and  conspiracy  between  him  and  Governor  Carlin,  John  C. 
Bennett,  and  others,  was  fully  investigated  at  the  October 
conference  of  1843;  and  at  the  conclusion  of  the  examinar 
tion,  as  the  published  minutes  of  the  conference  have  it: — 

President  Joseph  Smith  arose  and  satisfactorily  explained  to 
the  congregation  the  supposed  treacherous  correspondence  with 
Ex-Governor  Carlin,  which  wholly  removed  suspicion  from 
Elder  Sidney  Rigdon,  and  from  every  other  person. — Times  and 
Seasons,  Vol.  4,  p.  330. 

That  Mr.  Rigdon's  conduct  in  some  respects  was  blam- 
able,  we  do  not  doubt;  but  how  could  Mr.  Roberts  assert 
that  it  was  knoion  that  he  was  guilty  of  an  offense  of  which 
the  record  says  that  suspicion  was  wholly  removed  from 
him  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  assembled  church?  Yet  Mr. 
Roberts  in  his  "Preface"  explains  the  incentive  that  has 
prompted  him  in  this  work  as  follows: — 

My  desire  to  preserve  from  error  those  not  acquainted  with 
the  order  of  the  priesthood  of  God,  and  the  facts  of  church 
history  in  the  great  dispensation  of  the  last  days,  has  been  the 
incentive  which  prompted  me  to  write  it. 

To  misrepresent  the  facts  of  history  is  not  the  proper 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  9 

way  to  preserve  from  error  those  who  are  ignorant  on  the 
subject;  and  to  falsely  heap  odium  upon  a  man  who  is  not 
here  to  defend  himself,  no  matter  what  his  failings  may 
have  been,  is  detestable.  But  it  has  been  the  policy  of 
Brigham  Young  and  his  fellows,  since  1844,  to  vilify, 
slander,  and  abuse  every  one  who1  refused  to  indorse  their 
measures.  These  tendencies  to  misrepresent  the  facts  of 
history  and  to  heap  opprobrium  upon  opponents  are  pain- 
fully apparent  in  the  work  of  Mr.  Roberts  now  under 
consideration.  We  may  have  occasion  to  frequently  invite 
attention  to  these  tendencies,  though  we  should  not  do  so 
only  in  the  interest  of  truth  and  justice. 

After  other  reflections  upon  the  character  of  Mr.  Rig- 
don,  Mr.  Roberts  introduces  the  meeting  of  August  8, 
1844,  which  was  called  by  Mr.  Rigdon,  but  which, 
according  to  the  record,  was  largely  under  the  dicta- 
tion of  some  members  of  the  Quorum  of  Twelve  with 
Brigham  Young  at  their  head.  To  the  events  of  this 
meeting  we  wish  to  pay  some  attention,  for  it  is  important 
to  know  just  what  the  church  did  in  that  critical 
emergency. 

One  peculiar  feature  of  the  meeting  as  reported  by 
eyewitnesses  needs  close  attention  from  the  fact  that  Mr. 
Roberts  and  others  have  relied  upon  it  as  strong  evidence 
that  God  had  chosen  Brigham  Young  to  lead  the  people. 
It  is  asserted  that  on  that  occasion  Brigham  Young  spoke 
with  the  voice  of  Joseph  Smith  and  in  personal  appearance 
looked  like  him,  which  convinced  the  people  that  the 
mantle  of  Joseph  had  fallen  upon  him.  Upon  this  point 
Mr.  Roberts  introduces  three  witnesses,  as  follows: — 

George  Q.  Cannon,  who  was  present  on  that  occasion,  says: — 
If  Joseph  had  risen  from  the  dead  and  again  spoken  in  their 
hearing,  the  effect  could  not  have  been  more  startling  than  it 
was  to  many  present  at  that  meeting;  it  was  the  voice  of 
Joseph  himself;  and  not  only  was  it  the  voice  of  Joseph  which 
was  heard,  but  it  seemed  in  the  eyes  of  the  people  as  if  it  were 


10  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

the  very  person  of  Joseph  which  stood  before  them.  A  more 
wonderful  and  miraculous  event  than  was  wrought  that  day  in 
the  presence  of  that  congregation  we  never  heard  of. 

In  the  journal  of  Elder  Wm.  C.  Staines,  of  that  date,  the  fol- 
lowing statement  is  recorded: 

Brigham  Young  said — "I  will  tell  you  who  your  leaders  or 
guardians  will  be.  The  Twelve — I  at  their  head!'  This  was 
with  a  voice  like  the  voice  of  the  prophet  Joseph.  I  thought  it 
was  he,  and  so  did  thousands  who  heard  it.  This  was  very 
satisfactory  to  the  people,  and  a  vote  was  taken  to  sustain  the 
Twelve  in  their  office,  which,  with  a  few  dissenting  voices,  was 
passed." 

President  Wilford  Woodruff,  describing  the  event,  says: 

When  Brigham  Young  arose  and  commenced  speaking,  as 
has  been  said,  if  I  had  not  seen  him  with  my  own  eyes,  there  is 
no  one  that  could  have  convinced  me  that  it  was  not  Joseph 
Smith;  and  anyone  can  testify  to  this  who  was  acquainted  with 
these  two  men. — Roberts,  pp.  5-7. 

Upon  this  but  little  comment  is  needed.  If  the  testi- 
mony of  the  witnesses  be  true,  it  furnishes  no  evidence 
that  God  had  chosen  Brigham  Young.  In  the  history  of 
God's  dealings  with  men  there  is  not  found  evidence  that 
he  causes  one  to  change  his  individuality  for  that  of 
'another,  or  to  imitate  another  so  as  to  deceive  his  people 
into  the  belief  that  it  is  the  one  imitated.  By  the  influ- 
ence of  his  Spirit  he  enables  men  to  develop  and  more  fully 
equips  them  for  usefulness  in  his  service,  but  never  causes 
them  to  deceive  the  people  by  appearing  to  be  what  they 
are  not.  Only  hypocrites  are  guilty  of  this  species  of 
fraud.  To  make  God  the  author  of  it  is  to  make  him  a 
party  to  a  hypocritical  transaction  of  which  no  honest  man 
would  be  guilty.  Had  God  chosen  Brigham  Young  he 
would  have  presented  Brigham  Young  before  the  people 
clothed  with  authority  and  power  to  lead  his  people,  but 
he  would  not  have  fraudulently  passed  him  off  as  Joseph 
Smith.  That  instance  if  true  would  brand  the  movement 
as  a  deceptive  one. 

This  kind  of  a  trick  was  tried  as  early  as  the  days  of 
Moses.  In  a  revelation  given  through  Joseph  Smith,  in 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  11 

June,  1830,  and  now  published  in  the  Inspired  Translation 

of  the  Scriptures,  it  is  recorded: — 

And  now,  when  Moses  had  said  these  words,  Satan  cried  with 
a  loud  voice,  and  went  upon  the  earth,  and  commanded,  saying, 
I  am  the  Only  Begotten,  worship  me. — Par.  12. 

Paul  gives  us  some  light  upon  this  sort  of  work.  He 
says:— 

-For  such  are  false  apostles,  deceitful  workers,  transforming 
themselves  into  the  apostles  of  Christ.  And  no  marvel;  for 
Satan  himself  is  transformed  into  an  angel  of  light.  Therefore 
it  is  no  great  thing  if  his  ministers  also  be  transformed  as  the 
ministers  of  righteousness;  whose  end  shall  be  according  to 
their  works.— 2  Cor.  11:13-15. 

If  the  reader  will  carefully  examine  the  above  passages 
he  will  not  be  at  a  loss  to  determine  by  what  power  it  is 
probable  that  Brigham  Young  could  so  transform  himself 
that  "it  seemed  in  the  eyes  of  the  people  as  if  it  were  the 
very  person  of  Joseph  which  stood  before  them;"  especially 
so  when  nothing  of  this  nature  can  be  found  in  the  deal- 
ings of  God.  Mr.  Young  himself  may  have  been  deceived, 
but  whether  he  was  ignorant  or  conscious  of  the  part  he 
was  playing,  we  cannot  be  ignorant  in  regard  to  the 
authorship  of  this  deceptive  transformation  policy. 

The  counterpart  of  this  transaction  can  be  found  in  mod- 
ern spiritualism,  where  a  medium  or  a  spirit  assumes  a 
familiar  form  and  voice.  This  clew  may  enable  us  to 
account  for  some  of  the  dark  and  mysterious  things  con- 
nected with  the  people  who  accepted,  as  from  God,  the 
peculiar  phenomenon  exhibited  at  Nauvoo  on  August  8, 
1844.  It  was  an  opportune  time  for  the  spirit  of  darkness 
to  step  in,  and  was  improved  to  the  sorrow  and  disap- 
pointment of  many.  Oh,  that  he  who  had  the  influence  to 
lead  had  possessed  the  discernment  and  strength  of  Moses 
to  have  said,  "Depart  hence,  Satan  !  " 

Just  what  did  transpire  at  that  important  meeting  it  is 
very  hard  to  determine,  for  the  accounts  are  quite  conflict- 


12  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

ing.  It  is  quite  clear  that  the  meeting  was  called  by  Elder 
Sidney  Rigdon  for  the  purpose  of  presenting  his  claims, 
but  it  appears  that  Brigham  Young  took  the  active  over- 
sight of  it,  if  he  did  not  entirely  monopolize  it.  By  the 
account  published  at  the  time  it  does  not  appear  that 
Elder  Rigdon  was  permitted  to  address  the  meeting. 
Brigham  Young  "called  the  audience  to  order"  and  "ar- 
ranged the  several  quorums."  Prayer  was  offered  by 
Elder  Phelps.  Elder  Young  then  spoke,  followed  by 
Elders  Lyman,  Phelps,  and  Pratt;  then  Elder  Young 
closed  and  during  his  remarks  presented  certain  motions. 
Elder  Rigdon  is  not  mentioned  as  a  participant  except  in 
his  refusal  to  have  his  name  presented  to  the  assembly 
when  the  voting  was  had.  See  Times  and  Seasons,  Vol.  5, 
pp.  637,  638.  Yet  Mr.  Roberts  states:— 

The  next  day  was  the  one  appointed  by  Sidney  Rigdon  for 
the  church  to  assemble  and  choose  a  "Guardian."  The 
attendance  was  large,  as  intense  interest  had  been  awakened 
upon  the  subject  to  be  considered.  Sidney  Rigdon  addressed 
the  assembly,  setting  forth  his  claim  to  the'"Guardianship"  of 
the  church.  He  had  full  opportunity  to  present  his  case,  and 
for  an  hour  and  a  half  spoke  without  interruption;  but  despite 
his  reputation  as  an  orator,  he  failed  to  convince  the  saints 
that  he  was  sent  of  God. — Roberts,  p.  5. 

After  this  discussion  the  published  account  states: 
"Counsellor  Rigdon  refused  to  have  his  name  voted  for  as 
a  spokesman  or  guardian."  In  harmony  with  this  Mr. 
Roberts  explains  in  a  footnote  on  page  10,  as  follows: — 

The  quorums  had  been  arranged  to  vote  separately  and  in 
their  order,  but  when  Elder  Young  put  the  question  on  accept- 
ing the  Twelve  to  preside  over  the  church,  the  question  was 
put  to  all  the  quorums  and  the  whole  congregation  at  once. 
And  since  the  vote  to  sustain  the  Twelve  was  unanimous,  there 
was  no  need  of  putting  the  question  on  the  acceptance  of 
Sidney  Rigdon  either  to  the  quorums  or  the  people. — The  facts 
in  the  text  are  quoted  from  the  history  of  the  prophet  Joseph, 
Mill.  Star,  Vol.  XXV.,  p.  264. 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  13 

Yet  Mr.  Roberts  makes  President  Woodruff  to  contra- 
dict this  by  quoting  him  as  follows: — 

Nearly  all  the  quorum  of  the  Twelve  were  on  missions  in  the 
eastern  States  when  the  terrible  tragedy  at  Carthage  took  place; 
and  we  did  not  hear  of  it  for  some  time  afterwards.  We 
returned  to  Nauvoo.  It  has  been  repeated  to  you  here  tonight 
what  was  done  in  the  conference  in  Nauvoo.  I  do  not  know 
whether  there  is  anyone  present  here  tonight  but  myself  who 
was  at  that  conference — there  are  but  few  living  who  were 
present  on  that  occasion.  Brig-ham  stepped  forth  as  a  leader  of 
Israel,  as  has  been  said  here  tonight  by  Brother  Roberts,  and 
Sidney  Rigdon  also  tried  to  get  the  presidency;  but  when  his 
name  was  put  to  a  vote  before  the  conference  of  the  Latter-day 
Saints,  and  they  were  asked  if  they  wanted  him  as  their  guar- 
dian, to  guide  them  in  the  Celestial  Kingdom,  Brigham  said: 
**^.ll  who  do,  raise  your  right  hand,"  and  I  did  not  see  a  hand 
raised  in  his  favor  in  that  congregation. — Roberts,  p.  119. 

Now  let  us  inquire  what  did  that  assembly  vote  for?  It 
is  important  to  know.  The  record  as  published  in  Times 
and  Seasons  gives  it  as  follows:  *'  'All  in  favor  of  support- 
ing the  Twelve  in  their  calling,  (every  quorum,  man  and 
woman,)  signify  it  by  the  uplifted  hand;'  and  the  vote  was 
unanimous,  no  hand  being  raised  in  the  negative."  No 
wonder  it  was  unanimous.  No  Latter  Day  Saint  would 
refuse  to  support  them  in  their  calling.  Very  likely  Elder 
Rigdon  voted  for  that.  In  doing  so  no  one  was  committed 
to  the  subsequent  policy  of  the  Twelve.  But  Mr.  Roberts, 
on  the  authority  of  the  Millennial  Star  published  nearly 
twenty  years  later,  gives  the  resolution  as  follows: — 

"Do  the  Church  want  and  is  it  their  only  desire  to  sustain 

the  Twelve  as  the  First  Presidency  of  this  people? If 

the  Church  want  the  Twelve  to  stand  as  the  head,  the  First 
Presidency  of  the  Church,  and  at  the  head  of  this  king- 
dom in  all  the  world,  stand  next  to  Joseph,  walk  up  into  their 
calling,  and  hold  the  keys  of  this  kingdom — every  man,  every 
woman,  every  quorum  is  now  put  in  order,  and  you  are  now  the 
sole  controllers  of  it — all  that  are  in  favor  of  this  in  all  the  con- 
gregation of  the  Saints,  manifest  it  by  holding  up  the  right 
hand.  (There  was  a  universal  vote.)  If  there  are  any  of  the 
o.ontrary  mind — every  man  and  every  woman  who  does  not 
wanti  the  Twelve  to  preside,  lift  up  your  hands  in  like  manner. 


14  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

(No  hands  up.)    This  supersedes  the  other  question,  and  trying 
it  by  quorums. — Roberts,  pages  9,  10. 

The  reader  I  think  will  concede  that  the  account  pub- 
lished at  the  time  is  the  more  likely  to  be  correct,  and 
hence  the  church  was  not  at  that  time  committed  to  sus- 
taining the  Twelve  as  a  First  Presidency.  If  then  Mr. 
Rigdon  did  as  Mr.  Roberts  states  he  did  in  the  following 
quotation,  the  reason  is  quite  clear: — 

It  may  be  interesting  to  the  reader  to  know  that  Sidney  Rig- 
don  himself  outwardly  seemed  to  acquiesce  in  the  decision  of 
the  church  with  regard  to  himself.  The  Sunday  following  the 
meeting  above  described  he  addressed  the  saints  for  a  long 
time,  "blessed  them  in  the  name  of  the  Lord;  telling  them 
emphatically  that  he  was  with  the  Twelve.  He  wished  to 
know  the  mind  of  the  church  in  relation  to  his  returning  to 
Pittsburg,  they  said,  "go  in  peace." — Roberts,  page  12. 

And  if  Elder  William  Marks  and  others,  who  afterwards 
opposed  the  Twelve,  acquiesced  at  the  time,  it  can  be  easily 
explained.  But  more  of  this  resolution,  its  interpretation, 
and  effects  when  we  come  to  treat  directly  the  claims  of 
Brigham  Young  and  his  colleagues.  We  have  followed 
Mr.  Roberts  in  his  comments  regarding  the  movement 
under  Rigdon,  not  because  we  have  any  sympathy  with  the 
claims  of  Elder  Rigdon,  but  for  the  purpose  of  correcting 
certain  misrepresentations  because  of  the  influence  they 
might  have  upon  the  discussion  of  the  question  of  Succes- 
sion, which  is  the  leading  issue  between  us. 


CHAPTER  2. 

WILLIAM  SMITH— SLANDERED  BY  ROBERTS— SUSPENDED  FROM 
OFFICE — RESTORED — SUSTAINED — ORDAINED  A  PATRIARCH — 
HIGHLY  COMMENDED  —  ROBERTS  ERRS  CONCERNING  HIM  — 
PREACHES  LINEAL  PRIESTHOOD— BRIGHAMITES  EXPEL  HIM— 
LUCY  SMITH  ET  AL.  CONSIDERED. 

MR.  ROBERTS  next  introduces  the  work  of  William 
Smith,  the  brother  of  the  prophet;  and,  true  to  the  dispo- 
sition manifested  by  him  throughout  his  treatise,  com- 
mences with  a  slanderous  statement,  for  which  he  cites  no 
proof.  It  is  as  follows: — 

Following  the  attempt  of  Sidney  Rigdon  to  become  the 
"Guardian  of  the  Church,"  we  will  consider  the  efforts  of 
William  Smith,  brother  to  the  prophet  Joseph,  to  become  its 
President.  He  was  a  member  of  the  quorum  of  the  Twelve 
at  the  death  of  the  prophet,  though  for  some  time  his  conduct 
had  been  such  as  to  bring  him  into  disrepute  among  the  Saints. 
He  was  of  a  turbulent,  ungovernable  disposition;  a  man  of 
fierce  passions  and  violent  temper.  When  the  saints  were 
driven  from  Missouri,  in  1838,  and  his  brother  Joseph  cast  into 
prison,  such  was  his  vindictiveness  against  the  prophet  that  at 
a  general  conference  of  the  church  held  near  Quincy,  Illinois, 
May  4th,  1839,  he  was  suspended  from  fellowship;  but  was 
afterwards  restored,  mainly  through  the  pleadings  of  that 
same  brother  against  whom  he  railed  with  such  bitterness  of 
speech. — Roberts,  p.  15. 

He  who  seeks  thus  to  prejudice  a  case  against  an  oppo- 
nent before  the  investigation  begins,  manifests  an  unbe- 
coming spirit  of  bitterness  or  a  conscious  weakness;  and 
when  he  afterwards  assumes  the  role  of  a  witness,  as  Mr. 
Roberts  does  in  relating  a  personal  interview  with  William 
Smith,  we  must  consider  and  treat  him  as  a  prejudiced 
witness.  The  minutes  of  the  conference  of  May  4,  1839, 
have  this  entrv:— 


16  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

Resolved  9th:  That  Elders  Orson  Hyde  and  William  Smith 
be  allowed  the  privilege  of  appearing  personally  before  the  next 
General  Conference  of  the  church,  to  give  an  account  of  their 
conduct;  and  that  in  the  meantime  they  both  be  suspended 
from  exercising  the  functions  of  their  office. — Millennial  Star, 
Vol.  17,  p.  204. 

So  when  Mr.  Boberts  asserts  that  William  Smith  was 
suspended  from  fellowship,  he  misstates  the  case,  and 
when  he  assumes  to  give  the  cause  for  this  action  he  goes 
outside  the  record.  By  what  authority  these  statements 
are  made,  we  are  left  to  conjecture. 

In  the  History  of  Joseph  Smith,  under  date  of  May  25, 
1839,  occurs  the  following: — 

This  day  I  met  the  Twelve  in  council.  The  case  of  Brother 
William  Smith  came  up  for  investigation  and  was  disposed  of. 
— Mill.  Star,  Vol.  17,  p.  232. 

Not  a  word  about  Joseph  Smith  pleading  for  him;  nor 
are  we  informed  how  the  case  was  disposed  of.  He  was  no 
doubt  either  vindicated  or  forgiven,  as  we  find  in  the 
October  conference  minutes  of  the  same  year,  the  fol- 
lowing:— 

Orson  Hyde  to  stand  in  his  former  office,  and  William  Smith 
to  be  continued  in  his  standing. — Times  and  Seasons,  Vol.  1, 
p.  30. 

What  a  fruitful  imagination  Mr.  Roberts  has! 
In  the  very  next  sentence  after  the  one  quoted  above  Mr. 
Roberts  says: — 

Shortly  after  the  martyrdom  of  his  brothers,  Joseph  and 
Hyrum,  William  was  ordained  to  the  office  of  patriarch  to  the 
church,  to  succeed  Hyrum  Smith,  who  held  that  office  at  the 
time  of  his  death. 

Rather  an  unfit  man  for  Patriarch,  if  Mr.  Roberts  repre- 
sents him  fairly.  But  to  add  to  this  absurdity,  Mr. 
Roberts,  on  page  18,  returns  to  the  attack,  and  says: — 

William  Smith,  however,  did  not  command  much  of  a  follow- 
ing in  this  first  attempt  to  make  himself  a  leader.  His 
profligate  life  was  too  notorious  in  Nauvoo  to  make  it  possible 
for  him  to  wield  much  influence  even  as  a  schismatic. 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  17 

Is  this  the  character  of  men  that  Mr.  Young  and  his 
associates  placed  in  responsible  positions?  It  was  they 
who  ordained  William  Smith  a  patriarch.  At  or  near  the 
time  of  this  ordination,  when  John  Taylor,  of  the  Twelve, 
was  * 'Editor  and  Proprietor,"  the  Times  and  Seasons  had 
this  to  say  editorially  of  William  Smith: — 

Father  Smith,  the  first  Patriarch,  and  Hyrum,  his  successor, 
conferred  many  blessings  upon  the  saints  that  made  their 
hearts  glad.  But  they,  in  the  wisdom  of  God,  have  been  called 
away,  and  William,  the  son  and  brother,  succeeds  them.  How 
many,  now  will  say,  I  wish  I  had  my  patriarchal  blessing? 
This  has  been  the  lamentation  of  many  since  the  death  of 
Joseph  and  Hyrum.  William  is  the  last  of  the  family,  and 
truly  inherits  the  blood  and  spirit  of  his  father's  house,  as  well 
as  priesthood  and  the  patriarchal  office  from  his  father  and 
brother,  legally,  and  by  hereditary  descent. — Times  and  Seasons, 
Vol.  6,  p.  905. 

Is  this  the  way  that  disreputable  and  profligate  charac- 
ters are  recommended  by  the  church  which  Mr.  Eoberts 
represents? 

In  assuming  to  trace  the  career  of  William  Smith,  Mr. 
Koberts  claims  that  after  becoming  estranged  from  the 
Twelve  he  set  up  claims  to  the  Presidency  in  his  own 
right,  then  became  associated  with  James  J.  Strang,  and — 

After  his  failure  in  Nauvoo,  and  in  Wisconsin  in  connection 
with  Mr.  Strang,  we  next  hear  of  William  Smith  in  the  winter 
and  spring  of  1850,  visiting  those  who  had  been  members  of 
the  church  in  Illinois  and  Kentucky,  teaching  "lineal  priest- 
hood as  applied  to  the  Presidency  of  the  church."  That  is, 
he  taught  that  his  brother  Joseph's  eldest  son  had  a  right  by 
virtue  of  lineage  to  succeed  to  the  Presidency  of  the  church; 
but  also  taught  in  connection  with  this  that  it  was  his  right 
as  the  only  surviving  brother  of  the  former  President,  uncle 
and  natural  guardian  of  the  "seed"  of  Joseph  the  prophet,  to 
stand,  in  the  interim,  as  president  pro  tern  of  the  church. — 
Roberts,  p.  23. 

The  inference  conveyed  in  this  language  is  that  William 
Smith  did  not  teach  "lineal  priesthood  as  applied  to  the 
Presidency  of  the  church"  until  the  winter  of  1850.  But 


18  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

to  make  it  clearer  that  Mr.   Roberts  does  so  affirm  we 
quote  a  positive  assertion  found  on  page  65: — 

Not  until  1850  did  he  begin  to  proclaim  the  right  of  "young 
Joseph"  to  be  the  President  of  the  church;  and  then  not  by 
&ny  virtue  of  appointment  from  his  father,  but  by  right  of 
lineage;  and  with  this  movement  on  his  part  originates  the 
claims  of  Mr.  Smith  to  the  Presidency. 

That  this  statement  is  false  appears  from  the  following 
extract  from  a  letter  written  from  St.  Louis,  Missouri, 
November  22,  1845,  by  James  Kay,  and  published  in  the 
Millennial  Star  for  May  1,  1846:— 

Doubtless  you  will  have  heard  of  William  Smith's  apostasy. 
He  is  endeavoring  to  "make  a  raise"  in  this  city.  After  he  left 
Nauvoo  he  went  to  Galena,  when  he  published  a  "proclama- 
tion" to  the  church,  calling  upon  them  to  renounce  the  Twelve 
as  an  unauthorized,  tyrannical,  abominable,  bloodthirsty  set  of 
scoundrels.  I  suppose  you  have  his  pamphlet.  I  did  think 
to  send  one  the  day  he  landed  here,  but  felt  inclined  to  hear 
and  see  his  course  a  little  while.  Reports  were  daily  coming 
from  east  to  west  of  William's  unmanly  conduct;  sorry  I  was  to 
hear  them,  they  seemed  so  well  authenticated.  He  contends 
the  church  is  disorganized,  having  no  head;  that  the  Twelve 
are  not,  nor  ever  were,  ordained  to  be  head  of  the  church;  that 
Joseph's  priesthood  was  to  be  conferred  on  his  posterity  to  all 
future  generations,  and  that  young  Joseph  is  the  only  legal  suc- 
cessor to  the  presidency  of  this  church,  etc.  G.  J.  Adams  is 
William's  right  hand  man,  and  comes  out  as  little  Joseph's 
spokesman;  they  intend  holding  a  conference  here  this  week 
and  organizing  the  church  on  the  old  original  plan,  according 
to  the  Book  of  Doctrine  and  Covenants,  Book  of  Mormon,  and 
New  Testament.  Discussions  are  to  take  place  between  the 
Rigdonites  and  Josephiteson  the  claims  of  each  to  the  "Mor- 
mon Throne."  Two  high  priests  have  been  disfellowshiped, 
one  seventy,  and  a  number  of  other  officers  and  members  from 
this  branch  I  suppose  will  join  the  Smith  party. — Vol.  7,  p.  134. 

Here  then  is  William  Smith  preaching  lineal  priesthood 
and  the  right  of  "young  Joseph"  to  the  Presidency,  as 
eaily  at  least  as  the  next  month  after  action  was  taken 
against  him  by  that  faction  of  the  church  remaining  at 
Nauvoo. 

It  was  on  the  6th  of  October,  1845,  that  the  conference 
failed  to  sustain  William  Smith  as  one  of  the  Twelve,  and 


CHURCH   PRESIDENCY.  .     10 

as  Patriarch  (Times  and  Seasons,  Vol.  6,  pp.  1008,  1009), 
and  he  was  soon  after  expelled  from  their  fellowship. 
What  then  becomes  of  Mr.  Roberts'  statement  just  preced- 
ing the  one  last  above  quoted,  which  is  as  follows? 

Had  any  idea  prevailed  at  Nauvoo  that  "young  Joseph"  was 
to  succeed  to  the  Presidency  of  the  church,  this  man,  his 
uncle,  would  have  known  it;'  and  would  have  strengthened  his 
own  claims  at  that  time  to  the  right  of  leadership,  by  proclaim- 
ing himself,  as  he  did  afterwards,  in  1850,  the  natural  guardian 
of  the  one  who  had  been  anointed  and  ordained  to  succeed  to 
the  office  of  President.  But  this  he  did  not  do.  On  the  con- 
trary, he  claimed  the  place  for  himself  by  virtue  of  being  the 
brother  of  the  prophet.  When  he  failed  to  secure  the  position 
of  leadership  for  himself,  he  followed  the  leadership  of  James 
J.  Strang  instead  of  supporting  the  claims  of  "young  Joseph." 

Certainly  he  would  have  known  it;  he  did  know  it,  and 
immediately  proclaimed  it.  Nothing  but  ignorance  of  his- 
tory, or  a  willful  desire  to  deceive,  would  lead  a  man  to 
blunder  as  Mr.  Roberts  has  blundered  in  the  above.  In 
either  case,  is  he  the  proper  man  to  "preserve  from  error 
those  not  acquainted  with  .  .  .  the  facts  of  church 
history"? 

We  do  not  appear  as  -an  apologist  for  Elder  William 
Smith.  We  neither  approve  nor  deny  much  that  is  said 
of  him  by  Mr.  Roberts  and  his  associates;  but  enough  has 
been  said  to  show  that  neither  he  nor  anyone  else  could 
consistently  be  condemned  by  the  inaccurate  evidence  and 
false  statements  of  Mr.  Roberts. 

In  regard  to  Mr.  Roberts'  labored  effort  to  convict  Lucy 
Smith,  the  mother  of  the  prophet,  and  others,  of  indorsing 
the  claims  of  William  Smith,  we  have  but  little  to  say. 
Mr.  Roberts  relies  solely  upon  extracts  from  the  private 
journal  of  John  Taylor  to  sustain  his  allegation.  We  have 
not  access  to  Mr.  Taylor's  journal,  so  cannot  give  this  tes- 
timony a  thorough  examination;  but  after  a  careful 
examination  of  Mr.  Roberts'  work  we  cannot  accept  as 
conclusive  his  presentation  of  the  evidence. 


20  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

Again,  it  seems  strange  that  if  this  is  true  no  evidence  is 
brought,  except  from  this  one  private  source.  And  again, 
if  we  admit  it  all  to  be  true,  what  is  there  in  it?  Suppose 
that  Lucy  Smith  et  al.  did  indorse  the  claims  of  Elder 
William  Smith,  it  does  not  prove  that  they  had  heard  no 
other  claims.  Besides,  as  we  have  shown,  William  Smith's 
position  then  (June,  1845,)  or  soon  after,  was  that  of  lineal 
priesthood.  Mr.  Roberts  could  have  spared  himself  the 
mortification  of  "quoting"  "this  good  and  noble  woman," 
for  he  has  accomplished  nothing  by  it. 


CHAPTER  3. 

WIGHT  AND  MILLER— WIGHT'S  CHARACTER— ROBERTS'  BLUNDER 
— WIGHT  GOES  TO  WISCONSIN — His  RECORD — His  FOLLOWERS 
— GALVESTON  NEWS'  TRIBUTE — MILLER— His  REASON  FOB 
LEAVING  FORMER  ASSOCIATIONS — HEWLETT'S  LETTER. 

IN  his  third  chapter  Mr.  Roberts  introduces  Lyman 
Wight  and  George  Miller,  as  follows: — 

It  can  scarcely  be  said  that  either  Lyman  Wight  or  Bishop 
George  Miller  sought  to  lead  the  church;  but  they  were  guilty 
of  insubordination  to  the  constituted  authorities  and  lead  [led] 
away  parties  with  them,  and  illustrate  the  truth  of  President 
Young's  prediction  about  the  failure  of  such  persons,  hence  we 
consider  their  course. — Roberts,  p.  26. 

Here  Mr.  Roberts  makes  his  characteristic  mistake  of 
assuming  the  point  at  issue  by  concluding  that  the  authori- 
ties whom  Elder  Wight  and  Bishop  Miller  opposed  were 
properly  in  authority.  With  the  same  reckless  assumption 
he  continues: — 

Lyman  Wight  was  a  strong,  bold  man;  fixed  in  his  friend- 
ship for  the  prophet  Joseph,  and  true  to  him  under  many  try- 
ing circumstances;  but  withal  rather  difficult  to  control,  and 
after  the  death  of  Joseph  soon  manifested  a  disposition  of  in- 
subordination to  authority. — Ibid. 

What  caused  this  "strong,  bold  man,"  this  man  "diffi- 
cult to  control,"  to  be  fixed  in  his  friendship  and  true  to 
the  prophet  Joseph?  Such  characters  are  not  Controlled 
by  fear  or  easily  moved  by  influences.  There  is  but  one 
solution;  viz.:  Lyman  Wight  fully  and  sincerely  indorsed 
the  doctrine  preached  and  the  policy  pursued  by  Joseph 
Smith.  If  then  Mr.  Roberts'  estimate  of  the  man  is  cor- 
rect, it  follows  that  if  these  so-called  '  'constituted  authori- 
ties" had  been  preaching  the  doctrine  and  following  the 


28  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

policy  which  he  had  so  ardently  espoused,  Lyman  Wight 
would  have  been  fixed  in  his  friendship  and  true  to  them. 
Mr.  Roberts  continues: — 

As  far  back  as  February,  1844,  he  had  expressed  a  desire  to 
go  to  Texas,  and  after  the  death  of  the  prophet  seemed  deter- 
mined that  the  church  should  be  removed  there.  For  some 
time  a  number  of  persons  had  worked  under  his  and  Bishop 
George  Miller's  direction  in  the  pineries  of  Wisconsin,  getting 
out  lumber  for  the  Temple.  In  the  latter  part  of  August,  1844, 
President  Young  desired  him  to  return  to  the  pineries  and  con- 
tinue his  labors;  but  he  refused  and  expressed  a  determination 
to  carry  out  his  own  views,  and  be  the  controller  of  his  own 
conduct  regardless  of  the  counsel  of  the  presiding  quorum. 
He  therefore  went  to  Texas  instead  of  to  Wisconsin,  taking  a 
small  company  of  saints  with  him  and  settling  in  Texas,  not 
far  from  the  present  site  of  Austin. — Roberts,  p.  26. 

So  far  as  the  issues  between  us  are  concerned,  it  does 
not  make  a  particle  of  difference  whether  Lyman  Wight 
went  to  Texas  or  to  Wisconsin;  but  to  show  the  utter  unre- 
liability of  this  champion  of  "the  order  of  the  priesthood 
of  God  and  facts  of  church  history,"  we  will  quote  briefly 
from  the  journal  of  Lyman  Wight,  now  before  us.  It  is 
true  that  he  and  Bishop  G-eorge  Miller  had  been  directing 
a  company  in  getting  out  lumber  in  the  pineries  in  Wis- 
consin, but  he  returned  to  Nauvoo  about  April  20,  1844, 
and  at  the  time  of  the  death  of  Joseph  and  Hyrum  Smith 
he  was  with  others  of  the  Twelve  in  the  Eastern  States. 
He  again  returned  to  Nauvoo,  arriving  August  6,  1844. 
In  his  journal  under  date  of  March  17,  1845,  is  this 
entry: — 

From  the  6th  day  of  August,  1844,  until  the  28th,  I  was  mak- 
ing preparation  to  start  on  the  mission  appointed  unto  me 
previous  to  my  going  to  the  city  of  Washington.  Accordingly, 
on  the  28th  of  August,  I  left  Nauvoo  accompanied  by  one  hun- 
dred and  sixty-four  persons  on  board  the  steamer  General 
Brooke,  and  landed  at  Prairie  La  Cross  [Wisconsin],  up  the 
Mississippi  River  four  hundred  and  fifty  miles  above  Nauvoo, 
on  the  first  day  of  September,  1844.  From  that  time  until  the 
present  we  have  been  engaged  in  cutting  wood,  laboring  in  the 
pinery,  and  at  various  kinds  of  business  to  procure  a  living. 


OHUROH  PRESIDENCY.  28 

So  he  did  go  to  the  pineries  just  when  Mr.  Roberts  says 
he  refused  to  go;  not  by  request  of  Elder  Young,  but  to 
fulfill  a  mission  previously  given  him. 

If  Mr.  Roberts  disputes  the  above  we  are  ready  to  fur- 
nish names  of  men  who  were  in  this  expedition,  some  of 
whom  are  communicants  of  the  church  which  Mr.  Roberts 
represents. 

Again,  Mr.  Roberts  says: — 

For  his  insubordination  Lyman  Wight  was  excommunicated 
from  the  church,  the  action  being  taken  in  Salt  Lake  City, 
1848.  The  company  of  saints  that  followed  him  were  soon  scat- 
tered as  sheep  that  have  wandered  from  the  fold  and  the  care 
of  the  shepherd;  but  some  few  of  them  finally  found  their  way 
back  into  the  church.  Lyman  Wight  lived  in  obscurity  in 
Texas,  unknown  by  the  world,  unhonored,  without  a  following, 
and  died  outside  the  church  of  Christ,  with  which  he  had  suf- 
fered so  much  during  the  persecutions  it  passed  through  in 
Missouri.— Roberts,  pp.  26,  27. 

As  we  have  said  of  others,  so  we  say  of  Elder  Wight, 
we  do  not  appear  as  his  apologist.  That  he  erred  in  some 
things,  is  conceded.  But  to  more  fully  get  the  measure  of 
Mr.  Roberts,  let  .us  compare  a  few  facts  with  the  above 
statement:  Elder  Wight  retained  a  considerable  follow- 
ing until  his  death.  In  the  spring  of  1858  he  started  to 
move  with  this  body  to  the  northern  States,  when  death 
overtook  him,  on  March  31,  of  that  year,  at  San  Antonio, 
Texas.  After  his  death  the  company  continued  their  jour- 
ney, still  maintaining  an  organization;  and  though  their 
numbers  were  diminished  from  time  to  time,  the  organiza- 
tion was  not  entirely  extinct  until  it  was  absorbed  by  the 
Reorganization;  when  the  most  of  its  members,  true  to  the 
teachings  of  Elder  Wight  on  lineal  priesthood,  accepted 
the  presidency  of  Joseph  Smith,  the  son  of  the  prophet. 
Some  few  left  Lyman  Wight's  following  at  different  times 
and  went  to  Utah,  but  a  part  of  them  have  returned  and 
are  now  members  of  the  Reorganization.  Two  of  the  pos- 
terity of  Lyman  Wight  now  occupy  positions  in  the  Quo- 


24  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

rum  of  Twelve;  two  in  the  quorums  of  Seventy;  several 
hold  other  offices;  besides  others  of  his  followers  hold  re- 
sponsible positions  in  the  Reorganization. 

At  the  time  of  Lyman  Wight's  death  the  Galveston 
News,  then  the  leading  paper  in  Texas,  had  this  to  say 
editorially  of  him  and  his  following: — 

We  believe  we  have  omitted  to  notice  the  death  of  Mr.  Lyman 
Wight,  who  for  some  thirteen  years  past  has  been  the  leader  of 
a  small  and  independent  Mormon  settlement  in  Texas.  As  far 
as  we  have  been  able  to  learn,  these  Mormons  have  proved 
themselves  to  be  most  excellent  citizens  of  our  State,  and  we 
are  no  doubt  greatly  indebted  to  the  deceased  leader  for  the 
orderly  conduct,  sobriety,  industry,  and  enterprise  of  his 
colony.  Mr.  Wight  first  came  to  Texas  in  November,  1845,  and 
has  been  with  his  colony  on  our  extreme  frontier  ever  since, 
moving  still  farther  west  as  settlements  formed  around  him, 
thus  always  being  the  pioneer  of  advancing  civilization,  afford- 
ing protection  against  the  Indians.  He  has  been  the  first  to 
settle  five  new  counties,  and  prepare  the  way  for  others.  He 
has  at  different  times  built  three  extensive  saw  and  grist 
mills,  etc. 

How  is  this  for  living  in  obscurity,  unknown  to  the 
world  and  unhonored  and  without  a  following?  So  far  as 
his  dying  outside  the  church  is  concerned,  that  is  begging 
the  question  again.  Was  it  the  church  that  expelled  him? 

Where  would  this  guardian  of  historic  facts  lead  us  if  we 
were  blind  enough  to  follow? 

Mr.  Roberts'  strictures  on  Bishop  Miller  are  without 
material  point,  and  the  eloquent  effusion  with  which  he 
closes  the  chapter  is  only  interesting  on  general  principles. 
The  application  is  farfetched. 

It  might  be  well,  however,  in  this  connection,  to  give 
Bishop  Miller's  version  of  why  he  separated  from  what 
Mr.  Roberts  is  pleased  to  call  the  church.  In  June,  1849, 
Bishop  Miller  and  Richard  Hewett,  then  in  Texas,  each 
wrote  a  letter  of  inquiry  to  J.  J.  Strang,  both  writing  on 
the  same  sheet  of  paper.  (It  is  now  before  us.)  Elder 
Hewett  writes: — 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  35 

Now  I  want  to  know  what  your  mind  is  about  men  having 
the  priesthood  having  more  wives  than  one.  The  principle  is 
taught  amongst  all  that  I  have  been  with.  Some  have  from  2 
to  10  or  20,  and  some  have  none.  If  it  is  consistent  I  want  you 
to  let  me  know  when  you  write  to  me,  and  I  want  you  to  write 
as  soon  as  you  get  this  so  Brother  Miller  and  myself  will  know 
what  to  do.  You  must  excuse  me  for  asking  so  much,  but  you 
must  bear  with  me,  as  I  confess  I  am  ignorant.  Bro.  Miller 
says  their  whoring  will  send  them  all  to  hell.  You  can  see 
Brother  Hyrum's  epistle  to  me  on  that  subject  in  the  Times  and 
Seasons,  15th  March,  1844,  if  I  don't  mistake.  I  don't  find  such 
things  in  the  Book  of  Covenants,  nor  in  the  Book  of  Mormon, 
nor  in  the  writings  of  the  apostles,  and  I  don't  want  to  be 
deceived  nor  flattered  any  more. 

Bishop  Miller's  statement,  as  given  by  Elder  Hewett,  is 
not  elegant  but  very  expressive,  and  gives  .us  an  idea  of 
why  he  left  Mr.  Roberts'  so-called  church.  The  strong 
presumption  is  that  when  he  penned  these  words  Mr. 
Hewitt  had  not  heard  of  the  so-called  revelation  on 
polygamy,  and  if  not,  Bishop  Miller,  who  writes  on  the 
same  paper  with  Mr.  Hewitt,  certainly  had  not.  It  is 
rather  an  honor  than  a  disgrace  to  be  expelled  from  some 
churches,  and  if  Bishop  Miller  was  right,  this  is  one  of 
them.  For  an  extract  from  Bishop  Miller's  letter  here 
referred  to,  see  Church  History,  Vol.  2,  pp.  793,  794. 


CHAPTER  4. 

STRANG — CHALLENGES  TAYLOR  AND  HYDE — THEIR  REPLY — ROB- 
ERTS' UNMANLY  ATTACK. 

WE  make  these  chapters  to  correspond  in  number  with 
those  of  Mr.  Roberts'  for  the  sake  of  more  ready  reference, 
hence  some  will  be  very  short.  Tn  his  fourth  chapter  he 
treats  of  the  work  of  J.  J.  Strang;  but  there  is  nothing  in 
it  to  demand  especial  attention  from  us.  This  much  can 
be  said  for  Elder  Strang — that  he  possessed  the  courage  of 
his  convictions  and  was  both  willing 'and  anxious  to  dis- 
cuss the  issues  between  members  of  the  Twelve  who 
indorsed  Brigham  Young,  and  himself.  And  as  these  were 
living  issues  of  the  time,  and  as  Mr.  Roberts  admits  "he 
succeeded  in  deceiving  many,"  it  occurs  to  us  that  they 
should  have  been  willing  to  have  canvassed  these  points 
and  thus  protected  those  who  were  being  deceived. 
Instead  of  this  they  adopted  that  craven,  cowardly  policy 
which  they  have  followed  ever  since,  of  refusing  to  meet 
their  opponents  in  honorable  controversy,  while  boasting 
londly  of  their  own  pretensions  and  seeking  to  slander 
their  competitors. 

Mr.  Strang  wrote  two  of  their  number,  respectfully 
inviting  a  public  investigation.  They  penciled  a  reply 
upon  the  same  sheet  of  paper  and  returned  it.  In  that 
reply  they  scarcely  maintained  the  dignity  of  gentlemen, 
to  say  nothing  of  apostles  of  Jesus  Christ.  That  paper  is 
now  before  us  and  reads  as  follows: — 

PHILADELPHIA,  August  30,  1846. 
Messrs.  J.  Taylor  and  Orson  Hyde: — 

Knowing  from  your  public  proceedings,  as  well  as  otherwiw, 
that  you  and  others  appointed  with  you,  claim  the  right  and 


OHUROH  PRESIDENCY.  27 

are  attempting  to  use  the  power  of  dictating  all  the  affairs  of 
the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  in  all  the  world,  not  under  the 
direction  of  the  First  Presidency  thereof,  but  independently,  I 
suggest  to  you  the  propriety  of  your  publicly  showing  by  what 
means  you  are  authorized  to  act  as  leaders  of  said  church,  and 
offer  to  publicly  discuss  that  question  with  you  in  this  city  or 
any  other  proper  place  that  will  suit  your  convenience.  Your 
answer  to  this  left  at  the  house  of  Jacob  Gibson,  N.  E.  corner 
of  Third  and  Dock  St.,  near  the  Post  Office,  will  receive  imme- 
diate attention.  Most  respectfully, 

JAMBS  J.  STRANG. 

Sir: — After  Lucifer  was  cut  off  and  thrust  down  to  hell,  we 
have  no  knowledge  that  God  condescended  to  investigate  the 
subject  or  right  of  authority  with  him.  Your  case  has  been 
disposed  of  by  the  authorities  of  the  church.  Being  satisfied 
with  our  own  power  and  calling,  w«  have  no  disposition  to  ask 
from  whence  yours  came.  Respectfully, 

ORSON  HYDE. 

JOHN  TAYLOR. 

With  this  we  dismiss  Mr.  Roberts'  work,  so  far  as  it 
relates  to  J.  J.  Strang,  with  merely  the  suggestion,  that 
after  Elders  Hyde  and  Taylor  had  thus  declined  to  meet 
him  while  living,  it  is  unmanly  for  Mr.  Roberts,  while  rep- 
resenting the  same  organization,  to  attack  him  when  dead. 


CHAPTER  5. 

HISTORY  OF  REORGANIZATION— BRIGGS'  PRIESTHOOD— TWELVE 
AT  NAUVOO— ROBERTS'  SARCASM— PIERCY  ON  SMITH  FAMILY 
—PRESIDENT  SMITH'S  PLEDGE— ROBERTS'  PHILOSOPHY. 

MB.  ROBERTS  devotes  this  chapter  to  what  he  terms  the 
history  of  the  Reorganization.  Though  there  are  some 
inaccuracies  in  his  statements  we  will  not  here  pause  to 
follow  him  minutely,  as  the  facts  of  history  will  come  out 
in  the  investigation  of  the  issues.  However,  there  are  a 
few  points  which  may  demand  a  consideration  as  we  pass 
along. 

On  page  42  of  his  work  Mr.  Roberts  makes  the  following 
statement: — 

This  alleged  revelation  was  given  on  the  20th  of  March,  1853, 
and  at  the  April  conference  following  an  organization  was 
effected  on  the  above  indicated  plan.  After  a  long  discussion, 
about  whose  priesthood  was  the  highest  —  in  the  course  of 
which  a  great  deal  of  ill-feeling  was  manifested — finally  the 
controversy  ended  in  favor  of  Mr.  Briggs,  and  he  was  called  to 
preside  at  the  conference. 

The  above  is  misleading  in  this:  it  indicates  that  the 
decision  was  that  Elder  Briggs  held  the  highest  priest- 
hood. The  facts  were  as  follows:  They  were  commanded 
to  choose  seven  to  form  a  majority  of  the  Quorum  of 
Twelve,  and  the  instruction  provided  that  the  senior  of  the 
seven  should  preside,  or  stand  as  the  representative,  not 
by  virtue  of  the  priesthood  which  he  had  formerly  held, 
but  by  virtue  of  his  apostleship  then  conferred.  He  did 
not  hold  a  higher  priesthood  than  the  other  six,  but  by 
virtue  of  being  chosen  he  was  the  senior  among  them. 

There  was  doubtless  much  misunderstanding  and  some 
confusion  and  feeling  manifested,  but  the  final  conclusion 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  29 

was  in  harmony  with  the  law;  for  as  the  Twelve  were  the 
highest  in  authority  present,  it  was  proper  that  their 
senior  or  president  should  preside  or  stand  as  the  chief 
representative  until  higher  authority  came. 

Some  may  inquire,  Why  do  you  then  object  to  the 
Twelve  presiding  at  Nauvoo  after  the  death  of  Joseph 
Smith?  The  cases  were  different.  In  the  one  under  con- 
sideration none  of  the  First  Presidency  were  present;  at 
Nauvoo  there  was  one  of  that  quorum  among  them. 
Again,  we  do  not  object  to  the  Twelve  presiding  at  Nau- 
voo, or  elsewhere,  under  proper  circumstances;  but  when 
they  do  so  preside  it  should  be  in  their  own  calling,  and  not 
by  assuming,  as  they  did  at  Nauvoo,  to  be  the  First  Presi- 
dency. In  saying  this  we  do  not  wish  to  be  understood  as 
advocating  the  right  of  Sidney  Rigdon  to  preside  at 
Nauvoo.  The  truth  is  that  neither  Rigdon  nor  the 
majority  of  the  Twelve  were  content  to  preside  in  his  or 
their  calling,  but  each  aspired  to  honors  and  position  not 
guaranteed  by  the  law. 

On  page  44  Mr.  Roberts  makes  the  following  sarcastic, 
but  characteristically  contemptible  statement: — 

Meantime  Joseph  Smith  who,  according  to  his  own  auto- 
biography, had  failed  as  storekeeper,  railroad  contractor,  in 
the  study  of  law,  in  farming,  and  while  keeping  soul  and  body 
together  by  labor  and  from  his  fees  as  justice  of  the  peace,  was 
confronted  with  the  question  of  his  connection  with  his 
'•father's  work;"  and  in  the  winter  of  1859,  resolved  to  put 
himself  in  communication  with  the  "reorganized  church." 

For  confirmation  of  this  statement .  he  refers  us  to  the 
autobiography  of  Joseph  Smith  in  the  "Life  of  Joseph  the 
Prophet,"  by  Tullidge,  pp.  743-773.  While  it  is  true  that 
Joseph  Smith  was  not  very  successful  in  some  of  these 
enterprises,  anyone  who  will  take  the  trouble  to  read  the 
reference  will  see  that  Mr.  Roberts  has  overdrawn  the 
picture  for  the  evident  purpose  of  casting  a  slur. 

In  consideration  of  this  effort  to  reflect  upon  Joseph 


30  TRUE  SUCCESSION   IN 

Smith  we  will  here  quote  a  statement  from  the  Utah  peo- 
ple regarding  Joseph  Smith  and  the  Smith  family,  from  one 
of  their  own  works  published  a  few  years  before  the  time 
referred  to  by  Mr.  Roberts.  The  following  is  from  the 
"Illustrated  Route  from  Liverpool  to  Salt  Lake  Valley." 
Frederick  Piercy,  by  arrangement  with  S.  W.  Richards, 
made  a  trip  from  Liverpool  to  Salt  Lake  in  1853-54  to 
make  sketches  for  this  work.  It  was  edited  by  James 
Linforth  and  published  at  Liverpool,  by  F.  D.  Richards,  in 
1855.  Mr.  Piercy  visited  Nauvoo  enroute,  and  among 
other  things  says: — 

While  in  Nauvoo  I  lodged  at  the  Nauvoo  Mansion,  formerly 
the  residence  of  Joseph  Smith,  and  now  occupied  by  his 
mother,  his  widow,  and  her  family.  I  could  not  fail  to  regard 
the  old  lady  with  great  interest.  Considering  her  age  and 
afflictions,  she,  at  that  time,  retained  her  faculties  to  a  remarka- 
ble degree.  She  spoke  very  freely  of  her  sons,  and,  with  tears 
in  her  eyes,  and  every  other  symptom  of  earnestness,  vindi- 
cated their  reputations  for  virtue  and  truth.  During  my  two 
visits  I  was  able  to  take  her  portrait,  and  the  portraits  of  two  of 
her  grandsons  also.  That  of  Joseph,  the  eldest  son, .was  done  on 
his  21st  birth-day.  He  was  born  about  2  o'clock  in  the  morn- 
ing of  the  6th  of  November,  1832,  at  Kirtland,  Ohio.  He  is  a 
young  man  of  a  most  excellent  disposition  and  considerable 
intelligence.  One  prominent  trait  in  his  character  is  his  affec- 
tion for  his  mother.  I  particularly  noticed  tha  this  conduct 
towards  her  was  always  most  respectful  and  attentive.  The 
other  portrait  is  of  David,  the  youngest  son,  who  was  born  five 
months  after  the  assassination  of  his  father.  He  was  born  about 
9  o'clock  in  the  morning  of  the  17th  of  November,  1844.  He  is 
of  a  mild,  studious  disposition,  and  is  passionately  fond  of  draw- 
ing, seeming  to  be  never  so  happy  as  when  he  has  a  pencil  and 
paper  in  his  hand.  The  other  two  boys  whom  I  saw,  were  very 
fine,  strong,  healthy  fellows,  and  as  it  may  be  interesting  to 
many,  I  will  say,  that  during  some  conversations  which  I  had 
with  persons  in  the  neighborhood,  I  found  that  the  whole 
family  had  obtained  a  most  excellent  reputation  for  integrity 
and  industry.— Pages  63-66. 

Considering  the  amount  of  prejudice  at  Nauvoo  against 
the  Smith  family  and  the  church,  this  is  a  good  showing. 
But  Mr.  Roberts  must  sneer.  It  is  a  manifestation  of  his 
nature  or  education. 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  81 

On  pages  46  and  47  Mr.  Roberts  quotes  some  detached 
extracts  from  President  Smith's  speech  of  acceptance  of 
April  6,  1860,  and  especially  criticises  these  words,  as 
extracted  therefrom: — 

/  pledge  myself  to  promulgate  no  doctrine  that  shaU  not  fa 
approved  by  you,  or  the  code  of  good  morals. 

Mr.  Roberts'  criticism  is  based  upon  the  thought  that  a 
prophet  should  not  be  governed  except  by  revelation  to 
himself,  and  should  not  be  bound  by  the  voice  of  the  body. 
He  evidently  has  overlooked  the  fact  that  God  himself  does 
not  force  upon  the  church  an  edict  without  consent  of  the 
church.  In  the  revelation  of  1841  he  names  the  men  who 
should  fill  the  leading  offices  in  the  church,  and  then 
adds: — 

And  a  commandment  I  give  unto  you  that  you  should  fill  all 
these  offices  and  approve  of  those  names  which  I  have  men- 
tioned, or  else  disapprove  of  them,  at  my  general  conference, 
etc.— D.  C.  107:46. 

According  to  this,  God  himself  would  not  force  upon  the 
church  that  which  it  did  not  approve;  but  Mr.  Roberts' 
ideal  prophet  would  have  no  regard  to  church  approval. 
He  has  perhaps  overlooked  the  further  fact  that  according 
to  Orson  Hyde,  Joseph  the  Seer  had  established  a  rule  that 
revelations  were  to  be  approved  by  the  quorums  ere  they 
were  promulgated. 

Mr.  Hyde  says: — 

There  is  a  way  by  which  all  revelations  purporting  to  be  from 
God  through  any  man  can  be  tested.  Brother  Joseph  gave  us 
the  plan,  says  he,  when  all  the  quorums  are  assembled  and 
organized  in  order,  let  the  revelation  be  presented  to  the  quo- 
rums, if  it  pass  one  let  it  go  to  another,  and  if  it  pass  that,  to 
another,  and  so  on  until  it  has  passed  all  the  quorums;  and  if  it 
pass  the  whole  without  running  against  a  snag,  you  may  know 
it  is  of  God.  But  if  it  runs  against  a  snag,  then  says  he,  it 
wants  enquiring  into:  you'must  see  to  it.  It  is  known  to  some 
who  are  present  that  there  is  a  quorum  organized  where  revela- 
tions can  be  tested.  Brother  Joseph  said,  let  no  revelation  go 
to  the  people  until  it  has  been  tested  here. — Times  and  Seasons, 
Vol.  5,  pp.  649,  650. 


32  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

Mr.  Roberts  also  fails  to  notice  the  positive  assertion  oi 
President  Smith  as  follows: — 

I  have  come  in  obedience  to  a  power  not  my  own,  and  shall 
be  dictated  by  the  power  that  sent  me. 

This  indicates  that  he  would  not  submit  to  any  power 
other  than  the  one  that  sent  him,  though  he,  as  President 
of  the  church,  would  not  promulgate  any  doctrine  until 
approved. 

Mr.  Roberts  should  not  overlook  the  further  fact  that 
Mr.  Smith  when  he  made  the  pledge  complained  of  was 
acquainted  with  the  views  of  those  with  whom  he  was  to 
associate,  as  appears  from  these  words  found  in  his 
speech : — 

I  have  my  peculiar  notions  in  regard  to  revelations,  but  am 
happy  to  say  that  they  accord  with  those  I  am  to  associate  with, 
at  least  with  those  of  them  with  whom  I  have  conversed. 

Again,  it  is  evident  from  the  following  words  connected 
with  the  statement  complained  of,  "or  the  code  of  good 
morals"  that  he  had  in  his  mind  the  fact  that  many  of  this 
people  had  been  deceived  by  leaders  who  had  stealthily 
introduced  polygamy  and  other  immoral  practices;  and  he 
wished  to  assure  them  that  they  had  nothing  of  this  nature 
to  fear  from  him.  He  has  been  true  to  that  assurance. 

Further,  the  son  of  the  Prophet  knew  that  after  the 
death  of  his  father  several  of  those  who  had  assumed  the 
self-imposed  task  of  leading  the  church  had  taught  doc- 
trines and  practices  which  the  code  of  good  morals  con- 
demns; and  he,  feeling  the  necessity  of  putting  a  moral 
safeguard  into  the  pledge  which  he  felt  called  upon  to  make 
in  accepting  the  position  offered  to  him  at  Amboy,  deliber- 
ately stated  his  determination  not  to  teach,  promulgate,  or 
attempt  to  fasten  upon  the  tenets  of  the  church,  dogmas, 
teaching,  or  practices  which  would  not  be  approved  by  a 
righteous  people,  or  could  not  be  approved  upon  the  appli- 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  33 

cation  to  them  of  the  requirements  of  the  "code  of  good 
morals." 

When  it  is  understood  that  the  Bible,  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon, and  the  revelations  in  the  Book  of  Doctrine  and 
Covenants,  were  the  acknowledged  basis  of  the  faith  of  the 
church  in  the  martyred  Joseph's  time,  and  the  accepted 
source  from  which  the  code  of  good  morals  for  the  church, 
including  the  church  in  Utah  and  the  Reorganization  is 
derived,  the  statement  made  by  the  son  of  the  Martyr  on 
that  April  day  in  1860  to  the  people  to  whom  he  was  sent  by 
the  voice  of  the  Spirit,  was  a  strong,  not  a  weak  pledge; 
was  a  safe,  and  not  a  compromising  statement;  one  which 
reflected  honor  and  not  disgrace  upon  the  name  of  his  father; 
and  a  statement  and  pledge  which  all  good,  all  decent- 
minded  citizens  of  the  world,  and  all  Latter  Day  Saints  of 
every  shade  of  belief  ought  to  accept  in  good  faith  and  give 
"young  Joseph"  credit  for  being  strong  enough  to  make  it. 

Mr.  Roberts  then  seeks  to  draw  a  contrast  between  this 
position  of  President  Smith's  and  that  assigned  to  his 
father  in  the  following: — 

Wherefore,  meaning  the  church,  thou  shalt  give  heed  unto 
all  his  words,  and  commandments,  which  he  shall  give  unto 
you,  as  he  receiveth  them,  walking  in  all  holiness  before  me; 
for  his  word  ye  shall  receive,  as  if  from  mine  own  mouth,  in  all 
patience  and  faith;  for  by  doing  these  things,  the  gates  of  hell 
shall  not  prevail  against  you;  yea,  and  the  Lord  God  will  dis- 
perse the  powers  of  darkness  from  before  you,  and  cause  the 
heavens  to  shake  for  your  good,  and  his  name's  glory. — Doc- 
trine and  Covenants  19:  2. 

The  reader  will  observe  that  the  church  was  to  receive 
his  words  as  he  received  them  from  G-od,  "walking  in  all 
holiness"  before  him;  but  according  to  the  rule  quoted 
above,  the  church  was  guaranteed  the  right  to  be  satisfied 
that  he  had  so  received  them,  and  they  were  not  to  be 
promulgated  until  approved. 

Brigham  Young's  words,  quoted  in  this  connection,  by 
Mr.  Roberts,  only  reveal  the  boastful  spirit  of  the  man. 


84  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

Mr.  Roberts  closes  this  chapter  with  the  following 
peculiar  paragraph: — 

We  have  now  followed  the  history  of  the  "Reorganized 
church"  as  far  as  it  is  necessary.  It  only  remains  to  remark 
that  it  is  a  stream  formed  by  the  confluence  of  two  other 
streams;  one  of  which,  represented  by  Mr.  Gurley  and  his  fol- 
lowing, flows  from  Strangism;  and  the  other,  represented  by 
Mr.  Briggs  and  his  following,  flows  from  the  church  organized 
by  William  Smith.  We  leave  it  for  Josephites  to  inform  us  on 
what  principle  of  philosophy  two  corrupt,  apostate  streams 
by  uniting,  make  a  pure  one! 

This  conclusion  is  evidently  based  upon  the  supposition 
that  when  parties  come  out  of  one  organization  -to  affiliate 
with  another,  the  one  they  leave  becomes  a  part  of  the  one 
to  which  they  adhere. 

How  profound!  According  to  this  philosophy  the 
church  organized  by  Joseph  Smith  and  others  from  1830  to 
1835,  was  a  stream  formed  by  the  confluence  of  several 
other  streams  issuing  from  the  several  sectarian  churches. 

It  may  be  said  that  the  parties  composing  the  former 
organization  renounced  their  allegiance  to  other  churches; 
but  so  did  the  parties  composing  the  Reorganization. 
Emphatic  as  were  the  memorable  words  of  the  personage 
who  addressed  Joseph  Smith,  when  he  was  told  that  he 
"must  join  none  of  them,  for  they  were  all  wrong,  and 
.  .  .  their  creeds  were  an  abomination,"  they  are  no  more 
emphatic  than  the  words  of  revelation  to  Zenos  H.  Gur- 
ley:— 

Rise  up,  cast  off  all  that  claim  to  be  prophets,  and  go  forth 
and  preach  the  gospel,  and  say  that  God  will  raise  up  a  prophet 
to  complete  his  work. 

The  following  resolution,  adopted  June  13,  1852,  has  no 
uncertain  sound: — 

Besolved,  That  this  Conference  regard  the  pretentions  of  Brig- 
ham  Young,  James  J.  Strang,  James  Collen  Brewster,  and  Wil- 
liam Smith  and  Joseph  Wood's  joint  claims  to  the  leadership  of 
the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints,  as  an  assump- 


CHURCH   PRESIDENCY.  35 

tion  of  power,  in  violation  of  the  law  of  God;  and  consequently 
we  disclaim  all  connection  and  fellowship  with  them. — Tht 
Messenger,  Vol.  2,  p.  9. 

What  a  wonderful  acquisition  this  man  Roberts  will 
make  to  the  United  States  Congress,  if  he  succeeds  in  get- 
ting there.  He  can  inform  his  illustrious  colleagues  that 
this  government  is  a  stream  formed  by  the  confluence  of 
several  corrupt  streams  which  flow  from  all  the  despotic 
and  priest-ridden  monarchies  of  Europe.  And  we  are 
called  upon  to  reply  to  such  profound  philosophy.  Lest 
such  heights  make  us  dizzy,  we  will  just  come  down  and 
simply  inform  Mr.  Roberts  that  neither  now  nor  at  any 
time  in  the  past  has  the  Reorganization  been  composed  of 
Strangites  and  William  Smithites.  Though  some  who 
were  once  associated  with  them  have  united  with  us,  this 
is  also  true  as  regards  members  coming  from  the  Brigham- 
ites  and  from  every  other  society  in  the  country, 
many  have  come  to  us  from  the  world.  ' 


CHAPTER  6. 

WIGHT'S  TESTIMONY — GOES  TO  WISCONSIN — ROBERTS'  THEORY 
FALSE— SMITH  AND  WIGHT  TEACH  LINEAL  PRIESTHOOD — 
STRANGITE  RESOLUTION—  " YOUNG  JOSEPH'S"  BLESSINGS— His 
STATEMENT  —  REVELATION  OP  1841  —  JOSEPH'S  BLESSING  — 
WHITEHEAD'S  TESTIMONY — TESTIMONY  OF  EMMA  SMITH— G. 
J.  ADAMS  ON  LINEAGE — CARTER'S  TESTIMONY — WITNESSES 
NOT  IMPEACHED — BISHOP  MILLER — HYRUM  SMITH'S  ORDINA- 
TION— LAW  OP  LINEAGE — JOSEPH  SMITH  ON  DESCENT— CAL- 
HOUN  LETTER  —  CALL  BY  REVELATION  —  REORGANIZATION 
APPROVED  —  RICHARDS'  CORRESPONDENCE  —  ORDINATION  OP 
PRESIDENT  SMITH — RIGHTS  OP  APPOINTMENT. 

MR.  ROBERTS  begins  his  criticism  in  this  chapter  by 
quoting  the  testimony  of  Lyman  Wight  as  published  in 
some  publications  of  the  Reorganized  Church,  as  follows: — 

In  the  private  journal  of  Lyman  Wight,  ....  this  is  found: 
"Sunday,  December  8th,  1850,  bore  testimony  that  Joseph 
Smith  appointed  those  of  his  own  posterity  to  be  his  succes- 
sor." 

And  in  a  letter  he  wrote  in  July,  1855,  from  Medina  river, 
Texas,  to  the  Northern  Islander,  a  Strangite  paper,  Brother 
Wight  said:  Now  Mr.  Editor,  if  you  had  been  present  when 
Joseph  called  on  me  shortly  after  we  came  out  of  jail,  [Liberty 
jail,  Missouri. — Ed.]  to  lay  hands  with  him  on  the  head  of  a 
youth,  and  heard  him  cry  aloud,  "you  are  my  successor  when 
I  depart."  and  heard  the  blessings  poured  on  his  head, — I  say 
had  you  heard  all  this,  and  seen  the  tears  streaming  from  his 
eyes — you  would  not  have  been  led  [into  following  Strang]  by 
blind  fanaticism,  or  a  zeal  without  knowledge. — Roberts,  p.  50. 

Upon  this  Mr.  Roberts  comments  as  follows: — 

Of  this  testimony  it  is  to  be  said,  first  on  the  entry  in  Mr. 
Wight's  journal,  that  it  is  too  general  in  its  character  to  be  of 
much  service  in  supporting  the  claims  of  "young  Joseph." 
We  are  not  certain  that  he  refers  to  him  at  all.  Then  if 
Lyman  Wight  knew  in  1850  that  Joseph  the  prophet  had 
blessed  his  son  Joseph  to  be  his  successor,  as  prophet  and 
president  of  the  church,  Mr.  Wight  knew  it  in  1844;  and  is  it 
not  strange  that  he  did  not  speak  of  it  and  advocate  it  when 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  37 

the  question  of  a  successor  was  warmly  discussed  in  Nauvoo, 
during  the  autumn  of  1844?  Why  is  it  that  we  have  nothing 
from  him  on  the  subject  earlier  than  1850?  And  this  silence 
on  the  part  of  Mr.  Wight  is  the  more  significant  when  it  is 
remembered  that  he  was  a  bold,  fearless  man.  It  cannot  be 
said  in  truth,  that  Brigham  Young's  influence  was  so  masterly 
as  to  awe  him  into  silence.  As  a  matter  of  fact  he  violently 
opposed  Brigham  Young  in  some  of  his  measures,  and  at  last 
rebelled  against  him;  but  nothing  is  said  by  him  until  1850, 
about  the  appointment  of  any  of  the  prophet's  posterity  to  suc- 
ceed to  the  presidency  of  the  church.— Ibid.  pp.  50,  51. 

It  would  be  difficult  for  anyone  to  make  more  blunders 
in  the  same  space  than  Mr.  Roberts  has  made  in  the  above 
comment.  If  he  is  so  obtuse  after  all  that  has  been  pub- 
lished as  to  fail  to  understand  who  is  referred  to  in  Elder 
Wight's  journal,  he  might  read  the  following  from  a  manu- 
script of  Elder  Wight's  now  in  our  possession,  dated 
December,  1851,  and  published  in  Church  History,  Vol.  2, 
p.  791:— 

The  fifties  assembled  should  have  called  on  all  the  authori- 
ties of  the  church  down  to  the  lay-members  from  all  the  face  of 
the  earth,  as  much  as  was  convenient,  and  after  having  taken 
sweet  counsel  together,  in  prayer  and  supplication  before  God, 
acknowledged  our  sins  and  transgressions  which  had  caused 
our  head  to  be  taken  from  our  midst;  and  then  have  called  on 
young  Joseph,  and  held  him  up  before  the  congregation  of 
Israel  to  take  his  father's  place  in  the  flesh. 

Elder  Wight  was  not  at  Nauvoo  in  1844,  as  we  have 
seen,  after  the  death  of  Joseph  Smith,  except  from  August 
6  to  August  28.  Certainly  Elder  Wight  knew  as  much 
of  this  blessing  in  1844  as  he  did  in  1850;  and  if,  as  Mr. 
Roberts  asserts,  he  "violently  opposed  Brigham  Young  in 
some  of  his  measures,"  may  not  this  have  been  one  of  the 
points  of  disagreement?  If  not,  what  did  they  disagree 
about? 

But  Mr.  Roberts  says,  and  repeats  it,  that  Lyman  Wight 
said  nothing  on  the  subject  of  Joseph's  posterity  succeed- 
ing him  until  1850.  Again  Mr.  Roberts  is  wrong.  In  the 
Gospel  Herald,  Strang's  organ,  published  at  Voree,  Wis- 


38  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

consin,  in  its  issue  for  August  31,  1848,  is  the  following 
comment: — 

Lyman  Wight  seems  to  cherish  the  idea  that  is  ignorantly 
held  out  by  some  others,  that  Joseph,  the  prophet's  son,  will 
yet  come  up  and  take  his  father's  original  place  in  the  church 
as  the  prophet  to  the  church;  whereas  there  is  not  one  single 
word  in  all  the  book  of  Doctrine  and  Covenants  to  warrant  the 
idea. — Prophetic  Controversy,  No.  2,  p.  17. 

Mr.  Roberts  has  a  theory  that  the  claims  of  Joseph 
Smith  to  the  Presidency  originated  with  the  movement  of 
William  Smith  in  1850  (see  p.  18),  and  seems  determined  to 
make  everything  bend  to  the  support  of  that  theory;  hence 
he  asserts  in  positive  terms,  both  of  William  Smith  and 
Lyman  Wight,  that  they  did  not  teach  lineal  priesthood  as 
applied  to  the  Presidency  until  1850.  We  have  exploded 
this  theory  by  showing  that  William  Smith  is  on  record  on 
that  subject  as  early  as  November,  1845;  and  we  have  now 
shown  that  Lyman  Wight  was  criticised  as  early  as 
August,  1848,  for  teaching  that  Joseph  Smith's  posterity 
would  succeed  him;  and  he  must  have  been  teaching  this 
theory  some  time?  prior  to  this  date,  for  news  did  not  travel 
rapidly  in  those  days  from  the  frontiers  of  Texas  to 
Wisconsin. 

We  present  the  fact  that  these  two  members  of  the  Quo- 
rum of  the  Twelve  preached  this  so  soon  after  their  differ- 
ence with  the  quorum,  as  strong  presumptive  evidence 
that  this  was  one  of  the  points  upon  which  the  difference 
arose.  It  must  be  remembered  that  neither  William 
Smith  nor  Lyman  Wight  at  that  time  had  control  of  a 
press  by  which  to  preserve  on  record  their  views,  and  we 
are  dependent  upon  statements  of  their  opponents.  The 
Times  and  Seasons,  controlled  by  the  Twelve  and  published 
in  Nauvoo,  Illinois,  carefully  avoids  stating  what  the  issues 
were. 

It  leaks  out,  however,  through  i^he  Millennial  Star,  pub- 
lished in  England,  in  the  case  of  William  Smith,  and 


CHURCH   PRESIDENCY.  30 

through  the  Gospel  Herald,  published  in  Wisconsin,  in  the 
case  of  Lyman  Wight,  that  at.  least  one  of  their  conten- 
tions was  that  the  posterity  of  Joseph  Smith  should  suc- 
ceed to  the  Presidency.  Here  then  are  two  of  the  Quorum 
of  the  Twelve  opposing  the  usurpations  of  their  quorum 
from  the  beginning. 

Nor  were  they  alone  in  this.  The  above  quotation 
states: — 

Lyman  Wight  seems  to  cherish  the  idea  that  is  ignorantly 
held  out  by  some  others,  etc. 

We  are  not  told  who  those  some  others  were  nor  how 
many  there  were  of  them,  but  it  is  evident  that  the  feeling 
that  "young  Joseph"  was  appointed  to  some  special  posi- 
tion was  quite  strong,  even  among  Elder  Strang's  follow- 
ers, notwithstanding  the  adverse  comment  above  quoted; 
for  at  their  General  Conference  held  in  Voree,  Wisconsin, 
April,  1849,  the  following  resolution  was  presented  and 
passed  unanimously: — 

That  we  give  our  prayers  daily  for  Joseph,  the  son  of  Joseph, 
that  he  may  be  raised  up  of  God  to  fill  the  station  to  which  he 
has  been  called  by  prophecy. — Gospel  Herald,  Vol.  4,  p.  16. 

These  evidences  leave  Mr.  Roberts  in  a  very  unenviable 
position  as  an  exponent  of  "the  facts  of  church  history;" 
and  his  theory  that  uthe  claims  of  Mr.  Smith  to  the  Presi- 
dency" originated  with  the  movement  of  1850  is  pitiably  at 
fault.  Will  Mr.  Roberts,  like  an  honest  man,  abandon 
that  theory,  and  confess  his  error? 

He  next  seeks  to  impeach  the  testimony  of  Lyman 
Wight  by  referring  to  a  statement  that  Lyman  Wight  was 
said  to  have  taught  that  "young  Joseph"  was  blessed  by 
his  father  while  in  Liberty  jail,  Missouri,  and  comparing 
that  with  the  statement  quoted  above  that  he  blessed  him . 
shortly  after  he  came  out  of  jail.  This  he  claims  is  a  dis- 
crepancy in  time  and  place.  It  is  only  necessary  in  this  con- 
nection to  say  that  the  evidence  shows  that  Joseph  Smith, 


40  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

the  Prophet,  blessed  his  son  Jo.seph  both  in  Liberty  jail  and 
after  he  came  out,  and  Lyman  Wight  was  with  him  both  in 
jail  and  after  his  escape  and  arrival  in  Illinois;  hence  both 
statements  may  have  been  correct. 

As  evidence  that  two  blessings  were  given,  or  rather  the 
same  blessing  pronounced  at  two  different  times  and 
places,  corresponding  with  the  statements  of  Elder  Wight, 
read  the  following  from  the  pen  of  President  Smith,  pub- 
lished in  October,  1868:— 

In  Liberty  jail  the  promise  and  blessing  of  a  life  of  usefulness 
to  the  cause  of  truth  was  pronounced  upon  our  head,  by  lips 
tainted  by  dungeon  damps,  and  by  the  Spirit  confirmed 
through  attesting  witnesses. 

This  blessing  has  by  some  been  called  an  ordination,  from 
the  usual  predilection  to  confound  names  and  terms. 

The  blessing  which  marked  Moses  as  the  deliverer  from 
Egyptian  bondage,  -was  not  that  which  Jethro  pronounced  upon 
his  head. 

Subsequent  to  our  baptism  in  1843,  upon  two  occasions  was 
the  same  blessing  confirmed  by  Joseph  Smith,  once  in  the 
council  room  in  the  brick  store  on  the  banks  of  the  Mississippi, 
of  which  we  have  not  a  doubt  there  are  witnesses  who  would 
confirm  the  present  testimony;  once,  in  the  last  interview 
Joseph  Smith  held  with  his  family  before  he  left  Nauvoo  to  his 
death.  A  public  attestation  of  the  same  blessing  was  made 
from  the  stand  in  the  grove  in  Nauvoo,  some  time  prior  to  the 
murder  in  Carthage. — True  Latter  Day  Saints'  Herald,  Vol.  14,  p. 
105. 

In  the  light  of  these  facts  these  quibbles  of  Mr.  Roberts 
amount  to  contemptible  pettifoggery.  After  making 
another  unsupported,  slanderous  statement,  Mr.  Roberts 
seeks  to  throw  discredit  upon  the  testimony  published  in 
the  Northern  Islander,  in  1855,  by  affirming  that  this  is  not 
corroborated  by  Caleb  Baldwin  and  Alexander  McRae  who 
were  in  the  jail  at  the  time,  and  who  have  left  nothing  on 
record  regarding  the  occurrence.  In  answer  we  ask,  If 
the  statement  published  in  1855  was  untrue,  why  did  not 
Alexander  McRae  (who  we  believe  was  then  living)  contra- 
Hct  it?  His  silence  was  a  tacit  acknowledgement  of  its 
>rrectness. 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  41 

Mr.  Roberts'  next  attack  is  in  the  following  language:— 

.  (2)  Mr.  Smith  further  claims  that  he,  was  called  to  be  President  of 
the  church  through  his  father  by  revelation  in  1841. 

The  revelation  referred  to  was  given  the  19th  of  January, 

1841.      The  passage   in   it  supposed  to  sustain   the  claim   of 

appointment  of  "young  Joseph"  to  be  the  President  of  the 
church  is  the  following: 

And  now  I  say  unto  you,  as  pertaining  to  my  boarding  house 
which  I  have  commanded  you  to  build  for  the  boarding  of 
strangers,  let  it  be  built  unto  my  name,  and  let  my  name  be 
named  upon  it,  and  let  my  servant  Joseph,  and  his  house  have 
place  therein,  from  generation  to  generation;  for  this  anointing 
have  I  put  upon  his  head,  that  his  blessing  shall  also  be  put 
upon  the  head  of  his  posterity  after  him,  and  as  I  said  unto 
Abraham  concerning  the  kindreds  of  the  earth,  even  so  I  say 
unto  my  servant  Joseph,  in  thee  and  in  thy  seed  shall  the 
kindred  of  the  earth  be  blessed.  Therefore  let  my  servant 
Joseph  and  his  seed  after  him  have  place  in  that  house,  from 
generation  to  generation,  for  ever  and  for  ever,  saith  the  Lord. 

This  is  not  difficult  to  comprehend  as  it  stands  thus  in  the 
Doctrine  and  Covenants  unmarred.  It  is  simply  this:  a  com- 
mandment was  given  to  build  the  Nauvoo  House,  a  tavern,  for 
the  boarding  and  lodging  of  strangers.  Joseph  Smith  and  his 
family  were  also  to  have  a  home  therein;  for  he  was  com- 
manded to  put  stock  in  the  house,  and  as  a  matter  of  fact  did 
put  considerable  stock  into  it;  and  his  family  after  him,  from 
generation  to  generation,  was  to  have  that  inheritance  in  the 
house.  It  was  to  be  theirs  because  the  prophet  Joseph  had 
purchased  the  stock  which  secured  to  him,  and  his  posterity 
after  him,  the  right  of  a  home  within  it.  The  passage  does  not 
in  any  manner. refer  to  succession  in  the  Presidency  of  the 
church.  What  it  does  refer  to  is  clearly  seen  in  the  com- 
mencement of  the  paragraph — "And  now  I  say  unto  you,  as 
pertaining  to  my  boarding  house,  which  I  have  commanded  you  to 
build  for  the  boarding  of  strangers,  etc."  That  is  the  subject  of 
the  passage,  not  the  priesthood,  nor  the  succession  of  the 
prophet  Joseph's  son  to  his  father's  position  as  President  of  the 
church.  How  absurd  the  argument  that  because  a  man's 
posterity  are  to  inherit  his  stock  in  a  hotel,  or  succeed  to  the 
right  of  living  in  it  as  a  return  for  having  paid  a  large  sum 
towards  the  construction  of  it,  that  therefore  we  must  conclude 
that  it  means,  too,  that  a  man's  posterity  or  at  least  the  "head" 
of  it — the  eldest  son — must  also  inherit  the  father's  priest- 
hood and  calling  as  President  of  the  church! — Roberts,  pp. 
53,  54. 


42  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

Suppose  we  admit  that  the  subject  of  this  passage  is  the 
Nauvoo  House,  and  that  a  special  provision  was  made 
that  Joseph  Smith  and  his  family  were  to  have  place 
therein  from  generation  to  generation;  then  the  inquiry 
is  pertinent,  Why  was  this  provision  made?  If  we  under- 
stand Mr.  Roberts,  his  position  is  that  it  was  because 
Joseph  Smith  held  stock  in  the  house  and  the  Lord  was 
providing  that  his  posterity  should  succeed  to  his  property 
rights.  This  was  provided  for  by  the  laws  of  the  land, 
and  why  should  the  Lord  interfere  in  such  a  matter?  The 
law  of  the  land  would  also  protect  the  property  rights  of 
the  heirs  of  every  other  stockholder  in  that  institution.  If 
this  is  all  he  intended  to  do,  why  did  he  make  a  specialty 
of  the  family  of  Joseph  Smith?  Were  their  property 
rights  more  in  jeopardy  than  the  rights  of  hundreds  of 
others?  There  must  have  been  some  special  reason  why 
his  family  should  have  a  place  in  that  house.  That  reason 
will  become  clear  by  quoting  the  remainder  of  the  para- 
graph from  which  Mr.  Roberts  quotes  but  a  part.  Mr. 
Roberts'  quotation  ends  at  a  comma.  Commencing  at  the 
beginning  of  the  sentence  which  he  breaks  and  continuing 
it  reads: — 

Therefore,  let  my  servant  Joseph,  and  his  seed  after  him, 
have  place  in  that  house,  from  generation  to  generation,  forever 
and  ever,  saith  the^Lord,  and  let  the  name  of  that  house  be 
called  the  Nauvoo  House;  and  let  it  be  a  delightful  habitation 
for  man,  and  a  resting  place  for  the  weary  traveler,  that  he 
may  contemplate  the  glory  of  Zion,  and  the  glory  of  this  the 
corner  stone  thereof;  that  he  may  receive  also  the  counsel  from 
those  whom  I  have  set  to  be  as  plants  of  renown,  and  as  watch- 
men upon  her  walls.— D.  C.  107:  18. 

Here  we  have  the  purpose  of  the  house  described  as 
being  a  resting  place  for  the  "weary  traveler,  that  he  may 
contemplate  the  glory  of  Zion,  and  the  glory  of  this  the 
corner  stone  thereof;  that  he  may  receive  also  the  counsel  from 
those  whom  I  have  set  to  be  as  plants  of  renown,  and  as  watch- 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  48 

men  upon  her  icalls. "  This  being  the  purpose  of  the  house, 
does  it  not  follow  that  those  whom  God  decreed  should 
remain  in  the  house,  notwithstanding  their  property  rights 
were  no  better  than  others,  were  '  'set  to  be  as  plants  of 
renown  and  as  watchmen"  upon  the  walls  of  Zion?  Some 
one  may  ask,  Could  they  not  "be  as  plants  of  renown,  and 
as  watchmen"  without  being  in  the  Presidency?  In  a 
general  sense  they  might  be;  but  this  indicates  that  their 
counsel  was  to  be  in  a  special  manner  sought  by  the  inves- 
tigator. Why  should  they  be  thus  specially  pointed  out 
and  located  where  their  counsel  could  be  had  unless  their 
position  was  to  be  a  special  one?  Had  Nauvoo  been  built 
up  according  to  the  command  of  God  this  provision  would 
doubtless  now  be  in  force. 

Let  us  now  return  to  that  part  of  the  quotation  fur- 
nished us  by  Mr.  Roberts:  "Let  my  servant  Joseph,  and 
his  house  have  place  therein,  from  generation  to  genera- 
tion." Why?  Because  they  have  property  rights?  Their 
rights  in  this  respect  are  just  as  good,  but  no  better  than 
others.  Let  the  Lord  tell  us  why:  "for  this  anointing 
have  I  put  upon  his  head,  that  his  blessing  shall  also  be 
put  upon  the  head  of  his  posterity  after  him."  Then  to 
remain  in  the  house  was  not  the  blessing,  but  they  were 
to  remain  in  the  house  because  of  the  conditions  attaching 
to  the  blessing.  What  blessing  were  the  posterity  to 
have?  Joseph's  blessing.  What  was  his  blessing?  The 
Lord  gave  a  commandment  on  the  very  day  the  church 
was  organized,  April  6,  1830,  and  gave  instruction  that  a 
record  should  be  kept  and  that  Joseph  in  that  record 
should  "be  called  a  seer,  a  translator,  a  prophet,  and  an 
apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,"  etc.  (D.  C.  19:  1.) 

Again,  the  duty  of  the  president  of  the  office  of  the  high 
priesthood  is  to  preside  over  the  whole  church,  and  to  be  like 
unto  Moses.  Behold,  here  is  wisdom,  yea,  to  be  a  seer,  a  reve- 
lator,  a  translator,  and  a  prophet;  having  all  the  gifts  of  God 
which  he  bestows  upon  the  head  of  the  church. — D.  C.  104:  42. 


44  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

Here  then  is  the  blessing  given  to  Joseph  to  occupy  in 
this  position,  and  to  discharge  these  duties  and  responsi- 
bilities. But  some  one  objects  that  this  is  not  called  a 
"blessing;"  but  is  it  not  a  blessing?  However,  to  silence 
this  caviling  we  refer  the  reader  to  the  blessing  of  Joseph 
Smith  as  pronounced  by  his  father  on  the  occasion  of  the 
ordination  of  the  High  Council,  February  19,  1834.  Joseph 
in  his  history  says: — 

"My  father  Joseph  then  laid  his  hands  upon  my  head  and 
said,  'Joseph,  I  lay  my  hands  upon  thy  head  and  pronounce  the 
blessings  of  thy  progenitors  upon  thee,  that  thou  mayest  hold 
the  keys  of  the  mysteries  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  until  the 
coming  of  the  Lord;  amen."1 — Church  History,  Vol.  1,  p.  433; 
Times  and  Seasons,  Vol.  6,  pp.  994,  995. 

Here  the  doctrine  of  lineal  descent  is  recognized  for  the 
right  to  "hold  the  keys  of  the  mysteries  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven"  belonged  to  Joseph's  progenitors,  and  descended 
to  him.  Now  mark  you,  "his  blessing  shall  also  be  put  upon 
the  head  of  his  posterity  after  him. "  So  we  have  it  clearly 
denned  that  the  blessing  of  Joseph's  progenitors  was  con- 
ferred on  Joseph  that  he  might  "hold  the  keys  of  the 
mysteries  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven;"  and  this  blessing 
was  to  descend  unto  his  posterity.  Now  what  position  in 
the  church  does  this  blessing  guarantee?  Hear  what  the 
Lord  said  to  Frederick  G-.  Williams  in  March,  1832:— 

Hearken  to  the  calling  wherewith  you  are  called,  even  to  be 
a  high  priest  in  my  church,  and  a  counselor  unto  my  servant, 
Joseph  Smith,  Jr.,  unto  whom  I  have  given  the  keys  of  the 
kingdom,  which  belongeth  always  unto  the  presidency  of  the 
high  priesthood;  etc.— D.  C.  80:1. 

The  question  as  to  whether  this  special  blessing  always 
comes  to  the  eldest  son  is  not  an  issue  between  us  and  the 
people  of  Utah,  hence  it  is  idle  to  discuss  it  here.  We 
agree  that  it  was  bestowed  upon  Joseph  Smith  the  Martyr, 
and  the  above  shows  clearly  that  it  should  be  in  his 
posterity. 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  45 

Summarizing  the  points  in  the  paragraph  under  exam- 
ination we  get  the  following: — 

1.  The  boarding    house  is   the  subject    under   consid- 
eration. 

2.  Joseph  Smith's  family  was  to  have  place  in  that  house 
from  generation  to  generation,  forever  and  ever. 

3.  The  reason  for  this  is  that  they  were  to  inherit  their 
father's  blessing. 

4.  That  blessing  entitles  them  to  hold  the  keys  of  the 
mysteries  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

5.  These  keys  belong  always  unto  the  presidency  of  the 
high  priesthood. 

6.  Hence  the  presidency  should  be  in  Joseph's  posterity. 
We  grant  that  all  these  hereditary  rights  are  contingent 

upon  efficiency  and  worthiness,  and  a  man  or  family  may 
be  removed  from  his  or  their  place  for  transgression 
or  unfaithfulness.  But  these  disabilities  must  be  proved, 
not  assumed,  in  order  to  deprive  one  of  his  rights  under 
the  law. 

Again,  when  it  is  considered  that  this  revelation  com- 
pares the  blessing  of  Joseph  Smith  with  that  of  Abraham, 
and  affirms  that  in  Joseph  Smith  and  his  seed  "shall  the 
kindred  of  the  earth  be  blessed,"  how  poor  and  mean 
appears  the  idea  of  Mr.  Roberts  and  his  echo,  C.  W.  Pen- 
rose,  that 

it  has  not  the  remotest  application  to  Priesthood,  or  Presi- 
dency, or  succession  in  anything,  but  the  right  of  Joseph  the 
Prophet  and  his  posterity  to  have  place  in  that  house. — Priest- 
hood and  Presidency,  by  Penrose,  p.  15. 

Mr.  Roberts  resumes,  as  follows: — 

(S)  Mr.  Smith  claims  that  he  was  called  through  Tiis  father  to  be 
President  of  the  church  by  a  formal  anointing  in  a  council  at  Nau- 
voo,  in  1844. 

In  support  of  this  claim  Josephites  quote  only  the  testimony 
of  Mr.  James  Whitehead,  who  resides  at  Lamoni,  Iowa,  and 
who  is  said  to  have  been  one  of  the  secretaries  of  Joseph  the 


46  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

prophet.     It  is  said  of  him  rather  than  by  him,  that  for  the 
past  twenty  and  more  years  he  has 

Testified  publicly  that  he  personally  knew  that  Joseph  the 
seer,  in  the  presence  of  a  number  of  the  ministry,  in  Nauvoo, 
anointed  and  set  apart  his  son  Joseph  to  be  his  successor  in  the 
prophetic  office  and  Presidency  of  the  church,  and  that  soon 
after  the  seer  announced  publicly  from  the  stand,  on  a  Sunday, 
that  his  son  Joseph  would  be  his  successor. — Roberts,  p.  55. 

When  Mr.  Roberts  penned  the  words,  "Josephites  quote 
only  the  testimony  of  Mr.  James  Whitehead,"  etc.,  he  evi- 
dently had  forgotten  that  which  he  quotes  on  next  page 
from  the  pen  of  Joseph  Smith,  as  follows: — 

Of  this  alleged  anointing  in  1844,  when  Mr.  Smith  was  a  lad 
twelve  years  of  age,  he  himself  can  only  say: 

Before  the  death  of  my  father  and  uncle  Hyrum,  I  was 
blessed  by  the  first,  in  the  presence  of  quite  a  number  of  then 
prominent  Elders  in  the  Church,  this  blessing  being  confirmed 
just  prior  to  the  tragedy  at  Carthage. 

Upon  this  statement  Mr.  Roberts  comments  as  follows: — 

This  is  the  only  personal  statement  of  his  that  I  have  ever 
seen  in  all  the  writings  of  the  Josephites  in  regard  to  his  ordi- 
nation and  blessing  by  his  father,  and  it  appears  that  he  has  no 
recollection  of  the  nature  of  this  "blessing;"  if  he  was  anointed 
and  blessed  to  be  the  future  prophet  and  President  of  the 
church,  he  evidently  has  no  recollection  of  it,  etc. 

This  is  not  the  fault  of  "the  writings  of  the  Josephites," 
but  the  fault  of  Mr.  Roberts'  information.  We  have 
already  quoted  in  these  pages  another  and  fuller  statement 
from  the  pen  of  President  Smith  published  as  early  as 
1868,  (see  p.  40).  If  we  are  to  be  held  responsible  for  what 
Mr.  Roberts  has  not  seen,  our  case  is  indeed  a  hopeless 
one.  In  regard  to  the  testimony  of  James  Whitehead  and 
Emma  Smith,  Mr.  Roberts  states: — 

I  would  have  more  respect  for  this  evidence  if,  instead  of 
being  the  alleged  statements  of  these  several  parties,  it  had 
been  the  very  statements  themselves — the  statements  of  Mr. 
Whitehead  and  of  Emma  Smith,  instead  of  a  report  of  what 
they  said  by  some  Josephite  writer.  So  far  as  Mr.  George  J. 
Adams  is  concerned  he  must  very  soon  have  forgotten  his  ela- 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  47 

tion  at  finding  out  who  the  true  successor  of  the  prophet  was; 
for  he  afterwards  became  a  follower  of  Mr.  Strang,  and  the  very 
man  who  crowned  him  "king"  at  Beaver  Island. — Roberts,  p.  50. 

These  statements  were  published  during  the  lifetime  and 
with  the  knowledge  of  James  Whitehead  and  Emma  Smith, 
and  received  their  tacit  approval  by  not  being  corrected 
by  them.  However,  we  will  here  present  the  following 
direct  statement  of  Elder  Whitehead,  given  under  oath  in 
the  Temple  Lot  suit: — 

I  recollect  a  meeting  that  was  held  in  the  winter  of  1843,  at 
Nauvoo,  Illinois,  prior  to  Joseph  Smith's  death,  at  which  the 
appointment  was  made  by  him,  Joseph  Smith,  of  his  successor. 
His  son  Joseph  was  selected  as  his  successor.  Joseph  Smith 
did  the  talking.  There  were  present  Joseph  and  Hyrum 
Smith,  John  Taylor,  and  some  others  who  also  spoke  on  the 
subject;  there  were  twenty-five  I  suppose  at  the  meeting.  At 
that  meeting  Joseph  Smith,  the  present  presiding  officer  of  the 
complainant  church,  was  selected  by  his  father  as  his  succes- 
sor. He  was  oraained  and  anointed  at  that  meeting.  Hyrum 
Smith,  the  Patriarch,  anointed  him,  and  Joseph  his  father 
blessed  him  and  ordained  him,  and  Newell  K.  Whitney  poured, 
the  oil  on  his  head,  and  he  was  set  apart  to  be  his  father's  suc- 
cessor in  office,  holding  all  the  powers  that  his  father  held.  I 
cannot  tell  all  the  persons  that  were  present,  there  was  a  good 
many  there.  John  Taylor  and  Willard  Richards,  they  were 
two  of  the  "Twelve,"  Ebenezer  Robinson  was  present,  and 
George  J.  Adams,  Alpheus  Cutler,  and  Reynolds  Cahoon.  I 
cannot  tell  them  all;  I  was  there  too. — Plaintiff's  Abstract, 
p.  28. 

Shall  we  now  have  more  respect  from  Mr.  Roberts? 
George  J.  Adams  may  have  lost  confidence  in  this  appoint- 
ment afterward;  we  do  not  know.  But  he  did  not  forget 
"his  elation  at  finding  out  who  the  true  successor  of  the 
prophet  was"  so  readily  as  Mr.  Roberts  would  have  us 
believe;  for,  according  to  the  letter  of  James  Kay,  from 
which  we  have  quoted  (see  p.  18),  he  was  with  William 
Smith  at  St.  Louis,  in  November,  1845,  advocating  the 
right  of  young  Joseph  to  the  presidency.  Emma  Smith 
and  James  Whitehead  agree  that  G.  J.  Adams  was  present 
at  this  anointing.  We  present  the  fact  that  Mr.  Adams 


48  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

advocated  the  right  of  succession  in  young  Joseph  imme- 
diately after,  as  a  strong  corroborative  circumstance. 

In  confirmation  of  the  testimony  of  James  Whitehead 
and  in  refutation  of  Mr.  Roberts'  statement  that  ' '  Joseph- 
ites  quote  only  the  testimony  of  Mr.  James  Whitehead,"  we 
cite  the  testimony  of  John  H.  Carter,  of  near  Provo,  Utah, 
taken  in  the  Temple  Lot  suit,  at  Salt  Lake,  Utah,  March 
14,  1892.  After  relating  that  this  took  place  when  he  was 
present,  at  a  Sunday  service  held  in  the  Bowery  near  the 
Temple,  at  Nauvoo,  not  long  before  Joseph  was  killed,  he 
says: — 

Joseph  Smith  came  on  the  stand  leading  his  son,  young 
Joseph,  and  they  sat  him  down  on  a  bench  at  the  prophet's 
right  hand,  and  Joseph  got  up  and  began  to  preach  and  talk  to 
the  people,  and  the  question  he  said  was  asked  by  somebody, 
"If  Joseph  Smith  should  be  killed  or  die,  who  would  be  his 
successor?"  And  he  turned  around  and  said,  pointing  to  his 
son,  "There  is  the  successor,"  and  he  went  on  and  said  "My 
work  is  pretty  nearly  done,"  and  that  is  about  all  he  said  in 
regard  to  his  son.  He  said  in  answer  to  a  question  that  was 
asked  as  to  who  should  be  his  successor  in  case  he  should  be 
killed  or  die,  and  he  pointed  to  his  son,  young  Joseph,  who  was 
sitting  there  at  his  side,  and  said  he;  "There  is  your  leader." — 
Plaintiff's  Abstract,  pp.  180,  181. 

Upon  this  point  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Whitehead  and 
Mr.  Carter  agrees;  and  they  corroborate  the  statement  of 
President  Smith  published  in  1868.  (See  p.  40.)  Is  it 
stupidity  or  dishonesty  that  causes  Mr.  Roberts  to  flounder 
so? 

Mr.  Roberts  seeks  to  throw  discredit  upon  the  testimony 
of  Charles  Derry,  D.  S.  Mills,  Lucy  Smith  (mother  of  the 
prophet),  George  Miller,  Louis  G-aulter,  Harriet  E.  Gaul- 
ter,  Arthur  Milliken,  and  A.  B.  Moore;  but  as  in  neither 
case  does  he  introduce  evidence  in  rebuttal  or  to  impeach, 
we  shall  not  follow  him  in  his  immaterial  struggle.  The 
testimony  of  the  witnesses  must  stand  until  it  is  proved 
false  or  they  are  impeached.  These  witnesses  are  known 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  40 

by  reputation,  and  some  of  them  personally  to  many  of  our 
readers.     1  .ey  need  no  certificate  of  character. 

We  will  however  briefly  notice  the  comment  of  Mr. 
Roberts  on  Bishop  Miller's  testimony.  .He  says: — 

If  Bishop  Miller  had  any  testimony  of  any  weight  that  Mr. 
Smith,  the  son  of  the  prophet,  had  been  appointed  to  succeed 
to  the  position  of  prophet,  and  President  of  the  church,  will 
those  who  rely  on  his  statements  explain  how  it  is  that  with 
such  testimony  in  his  possession  he  ran  off  after  other  leaders? 
First  following  Mr.  Lyman  Wight  to  Texas,  and  after  quarrel- 
ling with  him  joining  Mr,  Strang  in  Michigan.  Bishop  Miller, 
like  Lyman  Wight,  lost  his  honor,  he  was  neither  true  to  the 
church  of  Christ  led  by  the  Twelve  after  the  martyrdom  of  the 
prophet  Joseph,  nor  true  to  Mr.  Wight,  nor  "young  Joseph." 
He  became  a  restless  man  after  his  apostasy,  unstable  as  water. 
There  is  nothing  either  in  the  nature  of  his  testimony  or  the 
character  of  the  man  after  his  apostasy  which  gives  any  influ- 
ence to  his  statement. — Roberts,  p.  61. 

To  say  that  the  above  insinuations  are  mean  and  despica- 
ble is  to  put  the  case  mildly.  Not  one  word  of  testimony 
that  he  and  Mr.  Wight  quarreled;  that  either  of  them  lost 
their  honor;  that  the  church  which  he  rejected  was  the 
Church  of  Christ;  that  he  was  untrue  to  Mr.  Wight  or 
young  Joseph;  that  he  became  a  restless  man;  that  he 
apostatized;  that  he  was  unstable  as  water.  All  this  is 
flaunted  before  us  without  proof  with  a  recklessness  that 
betrays  that  its  author  is  conscious  that  his  success 
depends  on  his  blinding  the  eyes  of  the  people  to  the  real 
issue.  In  contrast  with  this,  let  us  quote  what  the  Lord 
said  of  George  Miller  in  1841:— 

Let  no  man  despise  my  servant  George,  for  he  shall  honor 
me.— D.  C.  107:  8. 

The  issue  then  is  between  the  Lord  and  Roberts.  We  let 
it  rest  there. 

As  for  the  explanation  asked  for  by  Mr.  Roberts,  Bishop 
Miller  probably  went  to  Lyman  Wight  because  Lyman 
Wight  taught  lineal  priesthood,  and  afterwards  to  J.  J. 


60  TRUE  SUCCESSION   IN 

Strang  because  of  the  resolution  passed  by  the  Strangite 
conference  in  1849.  (See  p.  39.) 

Elder  Roberts  in  his  work  page  66  quotes  Brigham  Young 
as  stating  (see  Times  and  Seasons,  Vol.  5,  p.  683)  that  Joseph 
Smith  ordained  his  brother  Hyrum  to  succeed  him.  This 
claim  made  in  October,  1844,  by  Elder  Brigham  Young, 
would,  if  true,  destroy  the  prophetic  character  of  Joseph 
Smith;  for,  as  Elder  Young  informs  us,  Hyrum  fell  a  mar- 
tyr before  Joseph  did;  hence  if  he  was  so  ordained,  it  was 
a  failure,  and  certainly  God  did  not  prompt  it.  We  cannot 
accept  this  upon  the  unsupported  statement  of  Elder 
Young. 

The  words  quoted  by  Mr.  Roberts  from  Tullidge  do  not 
convey  the  idea  that  Joseph  ordained  Hyrum  to  be  his  suc- 
cessor, 

Mr.  Roberts  presents  another  division  of  the  subject  in 
these  words: — 

Having  disposed  of  Mr.  Smith's  claim  to  the  right  of  the 
Presidency  of  the  church  so  far  as  it  is  based  upon  an  appoint- 
ment through  his  father,  let  us  now  take  up  his  second  claim, 
viz: 

The  position  is  his  by  lineage — his  birth-right. 

There  are  two  offices  and  only  two,  in  the  church  which 
descend  by  lineage  from  father  to  son:  the  office  of  patriarch 
and  that  of  bishop.— Roberts,  pp.  66,  67. 

We  do  not  object  to  the  application  of  the  law  of  lineage 
to  the  offices  of  Patriarch  and  Bishop.  We  believe,  as  a 
general  rule,  that  what  belongs  to  the  father  belongs  to 
his  posterity  if  competent,  available,  and  worthy.  Recog- 
nizing, however,  that  the  son's  right  to  his  father's 
position  is  contingent  upon  these  conditions,  and  that  God 
alone  is  a  competent  judge  of  ability  and  worthiness,  we 
hold  that  no  man  should  be  ordained  to  any  office  without 
a  call  from  God.  We  believe,  however,  that,  under  favor- 
able conditions,  all  other  things  being  equal,  God  recog- 
nizes this  principle  in  his  selections.  What  we  object  to 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  51 

in  Mr.  Roberts'  theory  is  the  limiting  of  the  application  of 
this  law  to  the  two  offices  he  mentions.  This  we  believe  to 
be  erroneous. 

We  have  already  shown  that  Joseph  Smith,  the  Martyr, 
held  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  by  virtue  of  his  having 
received  the  blessings  of  his  progenitors,  and  that  this 
blessing  was  to  descend  to  his  posterity  after  him.  We 
now  proceed  to  show  that  this  law  has  a  general  applica- 
tion. 

A  revelation  was  received  through  Joseph  Smith  the 
prophet  on  December  6,  1832,  which  is  addressed  to  the 
Priesthood  without  distinction  as  follows: — 

Verily  thus  saith  the  Lord  unto  you,  my  servants,  etc. — D.  C. 
84:  1. 

In  this  revelation  is  found  the  following  paragraph: — 

Therefore,  thus  saith  the  Lord  unto  you,  with  whom  the 
priesthood  hath  continued  through  the  lineage  of  your  fathers, 
for  ye  are  lawful  heirs,  according  to  the  flesh,  and  have  been 
hid  from  the  world  with  Christ  in  God:  therefore  your  life  and 
the  priesthood  hath  remained,  and  must  needs  remain,  through 
you  and  your  lineage,  until  the  restoration  of  all  things  spoken 
by  the  mouths  of  all  the  holy  prophets  since  the  world  began. — 
D.  C.  84:  3. 

Here  the  law  of  lineage  is  specifically  and  clearly  taught 
as  applied  to  those  holding  the  priesthood,  and  it  is 
expressly  declared  that  those  who  held  the  priesthood  in 
1832  did  so  in  harmony  with  the  rights  of  lineage.  It  is 
natural  for.  some  men  in  the  heat  of  argument  to  inad- 
vertently strain  a  point  for  the  sake  of  a  specific  applica- 
tion, and  if  overzealous  individuals  have  made  this  mistake 
with  this  passage  we  decline  to  be  bound  by  such  argu- 
ment. We  concede,  and  believe,  that  this  passage  does 
not  have  an  exclusive  application  to  Joseph  Smith  and  his 
posterity,  but  that  it  is  general  in  its  application.  We 
contend,  however,  that  while  Joseph  Smith  and  his  pos- 
terity are  not  the  only  ones  referred  to,  they  should  not  be 
excluded  from  the  application  of  this  general  rule. 


52  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

It  is  asserted,  however,  that  this  language  treats  only  of 
the  priesthood,  and  not  to  offices  in  the  priesthood.  It 
would  be  difficult  for  Mr.  Roberts  and  his  fellows  to  estab- 
lish his  exception  in  the  case  of  the  Patriarch  upon  this 
reasoning.  However,  we  have  shown  clearly  that  Joseph, 
the  Martyr,  held  his  position  in  the  priesthood  by  virtue  of 
his  having  obtained  the  blessings  of  his  progenitors,  and 
that  that  blessing  was  to  descend  to  his  posterity.  We 
believe  that  other  families  are  subject  to  the  same  rule, 
contingent  upon  the  same  conditions  and  restrictions. 
Science  has  proclaimed  a  reason  for  this  provision,  not 
considered  in  former  years,  which  demonstrates  its  beauty 
and  consistency.  The  theory  of  prenatal  influences,  which 
provides  that  the  child  before  birth  is  influenced  in  dispo- 
sition and  traits  of  character  by  its  parentage,  is  now 
adopted  by  the  best  minds  of  the  age.  It  follows  then  that 
if  a  man  is  thoroughly  imbued  with  the  spirit  of  his  call- 
ing, and  earnestly  and  zealously  engaged  in  the  execution 
of  the  duties  of  that  office,  the  child  born  to  him  under 
these  conditions  is  likely  to  possess  pre-eminently  the  quali- 
ties neccessary  to  succeed  in  the  position  filled  by  the 
father;  more  especially  is  this  true  when  the  mother  is 
also  thoroughly  in  sympathy  with  the  father's  work; 
hence  the  wisdom  of  removing  the  family  from  their  place 
when  the  father  fails  to  occupy  properly,  as  declared  in  the 
following  warning: — 

And  now  verily  I  say  unto  Joseph  Smith,  Jr.,  you  have  not 
kept  the  commandments,  and  must  needs  stand  rebuked  before 
the  Lord.  Your  family  must  needs  repent  and  forsake  some 
things,  and  give  more  earnest  heed  unto  your  sayings,  or  be 
removed  out  of  their  place.  What  I  say  unto  one  I  say  unto 
all:  Pray  always,  lest  that  wicked  one  have  power  in  you,  and 
remove  you  out  of  your  place. 

My  servant  Newel  K.  Whitney,  also  a  bishop  of  my  church, 
hath  need  to  be  chastened,  and  set  in  order  his  family,  and  see 
that  they  are  more  diligent  and  concerned  at  home,  and  pray 
always,  or  they  shall  be  removed  out  of  their  place. — D.  C.  90; 
8,  9. 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  53 

According  to  this,  not  only  the  Smith  family  and  the 
Whitney  family  had  a  place  in  the  church,  but  all  were  in 
the  same  condition,  their  place  depending  upon  their  faith- 
fulness. 

The  effect  of  prenatal  influences  will  naturally  be  more 
marked  and  positive  where  the  parent's  work  is  of  an 
inspired  spiritual  character,  than  where  it  is  merely  of  a 
physical  or  unaided  mental  character. 

It  is  conceded  that  God  can  use  any  man,  who  is  willing, 
for  the  accomplishment  of  his  purposes;  but  we  urge  that 
in  providing  a  law  or  rule  of  succession  he  would  evidently 
choose  that  law  or  rule  most  likely  to  produce  the  best 
results. 

For  some  cause  the  church  in  Utah  has  found  it  advisa- 
ble to  practically  follow  this  rule  in  many  of  the  leading 
offices  in  their  organization.  As  a  result  they  have  in  the 
Presidency,  Joseph  F.  Smith  to  succeed  his  father,  Hyrum; 
as  presiding  Patriarch,  John  Smith,  to  succeed  his  father; 
in  the  Quorum  of  the  Twelve,  Brigham,  the  son  of  Brig- 
ham  Young;  John  Henry,  the  son  of  George  A.  Smith; 
Heber  J.,  the  son  of  Jedediah  Grant;  Francis  M.,  the  son 
of  Amasa  Lyman;  John  W.,  the  son  of  John  Taylor;  and 
A.  O.  Woodruff,  son  of  Wilford  Woodruff.  The  late 
Abram  Cannon,  of  the  same  quorum,  was,  we  believe,  the 
son  of  George  Q:  Cannon.  What  then  but  the  ambition  of 
Brigham  Young  and  his  successors,  real  and  prospective, 
has  prompted  this  people  to  contend  so  strenuously 
against  the  application  of  the  law  of  lineage  to  the  Presi- 
dency of  the  church? 

Mr.  Roberts  concludes  his  argument  under  this  head  as 
follows: — 

As  a  conclusion  to  my  argument  against  the  claim  of  Mr. 
Smith,  that  the  position  of  President  of  the  church  »e  his  by 
right  of  lineage,  I  quote  the  words  of  his  illustrious  father.  In 
a  discourse  delivered  on  the  27th  of  August,  1843,  having  for 
his  text  the  seventh  chapter  of  Hebrews,  and  explaining  the 


54  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

phrase  in  the  third  verse — "without  father,  without  mother, 
without  descent,"  etc.,  he  said: 

The  Melchisedek  priesthood  holds  the  right  from  the  eternal 
God,  and  not  by  descent  from  father  and  mother;  and  that  priest- 
hood is  eternal  as  God  himself,  having  neither  beginning  of 
days  nor  end  of  life. 

In  the  face  of  this  how  can  Mr.  Smith  claim  any  right,  by 
virtue  of  lineage,  to  the  Melchisedek  priesthood,  much  less  to 
the  highest  office  in  that  priesthood?  His  claim  is  denied  by 
that  very  father  from  whom  he  claims  to  have  received  it  by 
inheritance.  It  occurs  to  me  here  to  ask  a  question:  If  the 
office  of  President  of  the  church  does  descend  by  lineage  from 
the  fathers,  through  the  line  of  the  eldest  sons,  how  is  it  that 
the  "law"  did  not  operate  on  the  other  side  of  the  prophet 
Joseph  as  well  as  on  this  side  of  him?  If  that  "law"  had 
operated  so — and  there  is  no  good  reason  why  it  should  not  so 
operate,  if  indeed  it  be  the  "law"  of  the  priesthood — it  would 
have  left  out  not  only  the  present  Mr.  Smith  but  even  the 
prophet  Joseph  himself.  For  in  that  event  it  would  have  come 
first  to  Joseph  Smith,  the  father  of  the  prophet,  who  was  a 
noble,  righteous  man;  and  then  after  his  death  to  his  eldest 
living  son,  Hyrum  Smith,  than  whom  there  has  been  no  more 
righteous  man  among  all  the  sons  of  God  who  have  lived  in 
this  generation;  and  from  him  it  would  have  passed  on  to  his 
eldest  son,  thus  leaving  out  the  prophet  Joseph  altogether,  as 
well  as  Mr.  Smith.— Roberts,  pp.  71,  72. 

For  this  purported  quotation  from  Joseph  Smith,  upon 
which  Mr.  Roberts  bases  his  argument,  he  cites  us  to  the 
History  of  Joseph  Smith,  Millennial  Star,  Vol.  22,  p.  55. 
This  was  published  about  the  year  1860,  twenty-six  years 
after  the  death  of  Joseph  Smith,  and  when  we  consider 
that  the  genuineness  of  some  publications  issued  by  the 
Utah  Church  in  those  times  is  doubted,  we  can  attach  but 
little  importance  to  such  testimony.  As  an  instance  of 
this  unreliability  we  cite  the  resolution  of  August  8,  1844, 
as  quoted  by  Mr.  Roberts  from  Millennial  Star,  Vol.  25, 
compared  with  the  resolution  published  in  the  Times  <md 
Seasons.  (See  p.  13.) 

Besides  this  Mr.  Roberts  places  a  strained  construction 
on  the  words  of  Joseph  Smith  as  quoted.  Without  lengthy 
comment  we  simply  submit  that  the  views  of  Joseph  Smith 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  65 

on  this  passage  were  doubtless  in  harmony  with  the  ren- 
dering by  himself  found  in  the  Inspired  Translation,  as 
follows: — 

For  this  Melchisedec  was  ordained  a  priest  after  the  order 
of  the  Son  of  God,  which  order  was  without  father,  without 
mother,  without  descent,  having  neither  beginning  of  days,  nor 
end  of  life.  And  all  those  who  are  ordained  unto  this  priest- 
hood are  made  like  unto  the  Son  of  God,  abiding  a  priest 
continually. — Hebrews  7:3. 

This  makes  the  order  of  the  priesthood  without  father,  or 
mother,  or  descent,  and  has  no  reference  to  rights  of  suc- 
cession to  offices  in  that  order.  So  if  Joseph  Smith  did  use 
the  language  attributed  to  him  by  Mr.  Roberts,  he  evi- 
dently intended  to  take  the  position  that  the  order  originated 
with  God,  and  not  by  descent,  etc.  Any  other  construction 
would  place  him  in  opposition  to  his  own  rendering  of  the 
passage. 

As  for  the  question  which  it  occurred  to  Mr.  Roberts  to 
ask,  all  we  have  to  say  is  this:  We  have  explained  and 
maintained  that,  though  God  honors  the  principle  of  lineal 
descent  both  in  priesthood  and  presidency,  yet  as  God  is 
the  sole  judge  of  fitness  and  availability,  none  should  be 
elevated  to  office  except  by  revelation  from  God.  Just 
why  the  Lord  did  not  restore  this  family  to  the  position  to 
which  they  were  entitled  because  of  the  blessings  of  their 
progenitors  a  generation  or  more  sooner  than  he  did,  is  not 
to  our  knowledge  revealed.  The  same  is  true  regarding 
the  Lord's  reason  for  passing  by  Hyrum  Smith.  It  is, 
however,  idle  to  discuss  these  questions,  for  Mr.  Roberts 
and  his  indorsers  concede  that  the  Lord  did  choose  Jiwjt/i 
Smith;  and  the  issue  is:  What  provision  did  the  Lord 
make  for  succession  after  him? 

That  Joseph  understood  that  his  posterity  was  to  suc- 
ceed him  in  his  work  is  evident  from  the  following  extract 
from  a  letter  written  to  John  C.  Calhom,  January  2, 
1844:— 


56  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

While  I  have  powers  of  body  and  mind;  while  water  runs  and 
grass  grows,  while  virtue  is  lovely  .and  vice  hateful;  and  while 
a  stone  points  out  a  sacred  spot  where  a  fragment  of  American 
liberty  once  was;  I  or  my  posterity  will  plead  the  cause  of 
injured  innocence,  until  Missouri  makes  atonement  for  all  her 
sins — or  sinks  disgraced,  degraded  and  damned  to  hell — 'where 
the  worm  dieth  not  and  the  fire  is  not  quenched.' — Times  and 
Seasons,  Vol.  5,  p.  395. 

Mr.  Roberts  proceeds  as  follows: — 

The  third  claim  made  in  behalf  of  Mr.  Smith  is: 
He  ioas  called  to  the  position  of  President  of  the  church  by  "revela- 
tion" to  himself. 

Of  this  it  is  not  necessary  to  say  very  much.  It  could  only  be 
important  if  sustained  by  the  other  two  claims,  viz:  that  he 
was  appointed  by  his  father  to  succeed  to  the  office  of  Presi- 
dent of  the  church;  and  secondly,  that  the  office  is  his  by  line- 
age. Since  these  two  claims  have  been  disproven,  it  renders 
his  third  claim  of  no  effect. — Roberts,  pp.  72,  73. 

Certainly  Mr.  Roberts  is  getting  reckless!  Does  he 
intend  to  concede  that  an  appointment  from  Joseph  the 
Seer  and  the  claim  of  lineage  are  of  such  vital  importance 
that  where  they  are  wanting  a  revelation  would  be  insuffi- 
cient? It  seems  incredible  that  Mr.  Roberts  would  give 
his  case  away  by  such  a  concession;  yet  this  is  just  what  Tie 
says:  The  claim  that  he  was  called  by  revelation  "could 
only  be  important  if  sustained  by  the  other  two." 

Mr.  Roberts  concedes  more  than  we  claim.  We  hold  that 
if  he  had  never  been  appointed  by  his  father,  and  if  there 
had  been  no  such  doctrine  announced  as  lineal  priesthood, 
a  call  from  God  by  revelation  would  have  been  important. 
The  first  prophet  and  President  of  the  church  was  called 
by  revelation  through  himself,  and  that  too  when  the  doc- 
trine of  lineal  descent  was  unknown,  and  when  he  had  no 
immediate  predecessor  to  appoint  him,  as  the  following 
will  show: — 

Be-hold,  there  shall  be  a  record  kept  among  you,  and  in  it 
thou  shalt  be  called  a  seer,  a  translator,  a  prophet,  an  apostle  of 
Jesus  Christ,  an  elder  of  the  church  through  the  will  of  God 
the  Father,  and  the  grace  of  your  Lord  Jesus  Christ;  being 
inspired  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  lay  the  foundation  thereof,  and 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  57 

to  build  it  up  unto  the  most  holy  faith;  which  church  was 
organized  and  established,  in  the  year  of  your  Lord  eighteen 
hundred  and  thirty,  in  the  fourth  month,  and  on  the  sixth  day 
of  the  month,  which  is  called  April.— D.  C.  19:  1. 

However,  we  may  have  misunderstood  Mr.  Roberts. 
He  may  mean  that  unless  Mr.  Smith  was  appointed  by  bis 
father,  or  that  it  was  his  right  by  lineage,  his  claim  to  be  a 
revelator  would  not  be  valid,  and  hence  his  revelations 
would  be  of  "no  effect."  If  he  concedes  so  much,  we  thank 
him.  We  shall  have  need  for  this  concession  when  consid- 
ering the  claims  of  Brigham  Young. 

He  then  refers  to  the  manifestations  received  by  Presi- 
dent Smith,  and  adds: — 

These  are  all  the  "revelations"  spoken  of  by  Mr.  Smith  in  his 
autobiography,  or  quoted  by  his  supporters,  hence  these  must 
be  the  "revelations"  to  himself  by  which  he  was  called  to  be 
President  of  the  church!  Just  where  the  "call"  can  be  found 
in  them  is  the  thing  which  the  writer  of  these  pages  cannot 
see:  and  he  challenges  anybody  else  to  point  it  out. — Roberts, 
p.  74. 

We  accept  this  challenge  and  in  evidence  produce  a  reve- 
lation to  President  Smith  quoted  by  Mr.  Roberts  from 
Joseph  Smith's  autobiography  as  follows: — 

The  Saints  reorganizing  at  Zarahemla  and  other  places,  is  the 
only  organized  portion  of  the  Church  accepted  by  me.  I  have 
given  them  my  spirit,  and  will  continue  to  do  so  while  they 
remain  humble  and  faithful.— Roberts,  pp.  73,  74. 

Here  is  a  definite  and  specific  acknowledgement  of  the 
Reorganization  forming  at  Zarahemla  and  elsewhere.  Now 
it  only  remains  to  show  what  was  the  position  on  this 
point  of  the  people  thus  strongly  indorsed,  and  Mr.  Rob- 
erts' challenge  is  met.  It  will  be  remembered  that  this 
manifestation  to  President  Smith  came  in  1859. 

Elder  Jason  Briggs  claimed  that  as~  early  as  November 
18,  1851,  he  received  a  revelation  containing  this  state- 
ment:— 

In  mine  own  due  time  will  I  call  upon  the  seed  of  Joseph 
Smith,  and  will  bring  one  forth,  and  he  shall  be  mighty  and 


68  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

strong,  and  he  shall  preside  over  the  high  priesthood  of  my 
church,  etc. — The  Messenger,  Vol.  2,  p.  1. 

Elder  Z.  H.  Gurley,  Sen.,  claims  that  in  1852  a  manifes- 
tation came  to  him  as  follows: — 

The  successor  of  Joseph  Smith  is  Joseph  Smith,  the  son  of 
Joseph  Smith,  the  prophet;  it  is  his  right  by  lineage,  saith  the 
Lord  your  God. — Ibid.,  p.  9. 

Upon  this  and  like  information  these  men  and  others 
proceeded  to  renounce  all  other  leaders  and  to  teach  that 
the  right  of  presidency  was  vested  in  Joseph  Smith,  the 
son  of  the  prophet.  If  Mr.  Roberts  cannot  see  that  the 
indorsement  of  the  Reorganization  received  by  President 
Smith  in  1859  carried  with  it  the  position  occupied  by  the 
Reorganization  on  the  subject  of  Presidency,  the  reader 
can. 

Again,  the  indorsement  of  this  position  was  not  confined 
to  these  two  men,  for  in  June,  1852,  the  body  adopted, 
among  other  resolutions,  the  following: — 

Resolved,  that  the  successor  of  Joseph  Smith,  Junior,  as  the 
Presiding  High  Priest  in  the  Melchisedec  priesthood,  must  of 
necessity  be  of  the  seed  of  Joseph  Smith,  Junior,  in  fulfillment 
of  the  law  and  promises  of  God. — The  Messenger,  Vol.  2,  p.  9. 

Mr.  Roberts'  next  statement  is  as  follows: — 

It  should  be  observed  here,  perhaps,  that  "revelations"  to  a 
man  personally,  that  he  is  called  to  be  President  of  the  church, 
even  when  clear  &nd  definite,  do  not  constitute  him  the  Presi- 
dent. Something  else  is  necessary.  As  observed  elsewhere, 
not  only  must  a  man  be  called  of  God,  but  he  muat  be  accepted 
by  the  church — "chosen  by  the  body,  appointed  and  ordained 
to  that  office,  and  upheld  by  the  confidence,  faith,  and  prayer 
of  the  church." — Roberts,  p.  74. 

To  this  we  agree,  and  shall  insist  in  all  our  controversy 
that  we  cannot  accept  as  President  of  the  church  any  man 
not  filling  these  requirements.  Of  course,  Mr.  Roberts 
denies  in  this  connection  that  President  Smith  was 
accepted  and  chosen  by  the  true  church;  and  that  he  was 
appointed  and  ordained  by  proper  authority.  But  his 
denial  is  scarcely  worth  the  space  required  to  notice  it. 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  59 

However,  is  it  consistent  for  Mr.  Roberts  to  insist  upon 
these  requirements  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Smith  while  he 
defends  the  claims  of  Messrs.  Young,  Taylor,  Woodruff, 
and  Snow  to  the  Presidency,  none  of  whom  was  ever 
ordained  by  anyone  to  the  office  of  President  of  the  church? 
Or,  if  they  were,  we  have  seen  no  record  of  it;  nor  have 
we  been  able  to  get  any  information  on  this  point  from  the 
authorities  of  the  Utah  Church.  Some  time  ago  we  made 
an  effort  to  obtain  data  upon  this  and  other  points,  but  the 
result  was  very  unsatisfactory. 

That  the  reader  may  know  just  what  our  effort  was,  and 
how  treated,  we  here  give  the  correspondence. 

The  following  letter  which  explains  its  own  purpose,  was 
addressed  to  Elder  F.  D.  Richards,  their  Church  Recorder 
and  Historian: — 

LAMONI,  Iowa,  October  2,  1896. 
F.  D.  RICHARDS, 

Dear  Sir: — I  believe  you  are  Church  Recorder,  and  so  write 
you  for  historical  information.  Will  you  favor  me  by  stating 
what  the  approximate  or  exact  numerical  strength  of  the 
church  was  at  the  time  of  the  death  of  Joseph  and  Hyrum 
Smith. 

I  desire  this  simply  to  get  at  correct  historical  data. 
Respectfully, 

HEMAN  C.  SMITH. 

To  this  we  received  the  following  reply: — 

SALT  LAKE  CITY,  Utah,  Oct.  12,  1896. 
MR.  HEMAN  C.  SMITH,  Lamoni,  Iowa. 

Dear  Sir: — In  reply  to  yours  of  the  2d  inst.  as  to  the  numer- 
ical strength  of  the  church  at  the  time  of  the  death  of  Joseph 
and  Hyrum  Smith. 

The  nearest  we  can  approximate  the  number  was  about 
26,000  to  27,000  souls.  Respectfully, 

F.  D.  RICHARDS. 

To  this  we  replied  as  follows: — 

LAMONI,  Iowa,  Oct.  17,  1896. 
F.  D.  RICHARDS, 

Dear  Sir:— Yours  of  October  12,  1896,  is  at  hand,  stating  the 
approximate  numerical  strength  of  the  church  at  the  death  of 


60  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

Joseph  and  Hyrum  Smith  to  have  been  "about  26,000  to  27,000 
souls." 

I  am  surprised  at  the  number  being  given  so  small  by  you. 
How  do  you  explain  the  statements  of  Joseph  Smith  on  this 
point?  In  a  historical  sketch  written  by  him  and  published  by 
I.  Daniel  Rupp  in  1844  he  writes:  "There  are  no  correct  data 
by  which  the  exact  number  of  members  composing  this  now 
extensive,  and  still  extending,  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter 
Day  Saints  can  be  known.  Should  it  be  supposed  at  150,000  it 
might  still  be  short  of  the  truth." — History  of  Religious 
Denominations,  p.  409. 

In  his  reply  to  Henry  Clay,  May  13,  1844,  he  writes:  "Why, 
Great  God!  to  transport  200,000  people  through  a  vast  prairie; 
over  the  Rocky  Mountains,  to  Oregon,  a  distance  of  nearly  two 
thousand  miles,  would  cost  more  than  four  millions!" — Times 
and  Seasons,  Vol.  5,  p.  547. 

These  two  statements  would  closely  agree  if  we  include  in 
the  latter  statement  dependents  who  were  not  members,  but 
there  is  a  very  wide  difference  between  your  estimate  and  his. 

I  do  not  quote  these  statements  by  way  of  argument  against 
your  figures,  but  to  get  your  explanation  of  the  difference. 
Upon  what  basis  did  you  make  your  estimate?  Have  you  the 
record  of  names  kept  at  the  time?  I  want  to  get  at  the  truth  of 
the  matter  for  the  sake  of  historical  accuracy. 

I  would  like  to  ask  another  favor  of  you;  namely:  to  inform 
me  when,  where,  and  by  whom  were  Brigham  Young,  John  Taylor, 
and  Wilford  Woodruff  ordained  Presidents  of  the  High  Priest- 
hood, or  Presidents  of  the  church,  if  so  ordained? 

Or  if  it  is  the  position  of  your  people  that  they  needed  no 
other  ordination  than  that  to  the  Apostleship,  will  you  please 
so  state. 

I  am  engaged  in  writing  history  and  do  not  wish  to  misrepre- 
sent you.  Respectfully, 

HEMAN  0.  SMITH. 

Awaiting  until  November  19,  and  receiving  no  reply  to 
our  inquiries,  we  wrote  Mr.  Richards  as  follows: — 

LAMONI,  Iowa,  Nov.  19,  1896. 
P.  D.  RICHARDS, 

Dear  Sir: — On  October  17,.  I  wrote  you  in  reply  to  yours  of 
October  12.  I  am  very  anxious  to  receive  answer  to  inquiries 
made.  If  you  have  not  received  it  please  let  me  know  and  I 
will  send  you  a  copy. 

I  am,  respectfully, 

HEMAN  C.  SMITH. 
Still  receiving  no  reply,  we  awaited  until  December  16, 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  61 

when  we  mailed  him  a  copy  of  our  letter  of  October  17, 
together  with  the  following  note,  registering  them: — 

LAMONI,  Iowa,  Dec.  16,  1896. 
F.  D.  RICHARDS, 

Dear  Sir: — On  October  17  I  wrote  you  in  answer  to  yours  of 
October  12,  and  made  some  further  inquiries.  Waiting  until 
November  19,  and  receiving  no  reply  I  wrote  inquiring  if  you 
received  it.  Still  I  have  no  reply. 

I  now  inclose  a  copy  of  my  letter  of  October  17,  as  you  may 
not  have  received  the  original.  Will  you  please  give  it  your 
early  attention,  as  I  am  anxious  to  get  the  information  sought. 

I  inclose  stamp  for  reply. 

In  bonds, 

HEMAN  C.  SMITH. 

In  due  course  of  mail  we  received  the  "Registry  Return 
Receipt,"  signed  "F.  D.  Richards,  per  John  Jaques;"  but 
up  to  date,  November  15,  1898,  no  answer  has  been  re- 
ceived. 

When  two  of  their  own  representatives,  J.  H.  Stout  and 
U.  G-.  Miller,  made  the  same  inquiry  they  were  just  as 
unsuccessful,  as  the  following  will  show:— 

"  'Will  you  please  answer  the  following  through  the  News: 
Who  ordained  President  Brigham  Young  to  the  office  of  Presi- 
dent of  the  Church,  and  also  the  date  of  the  organization  ?  The 
Reorganized  ministers  are  making  the  statement  that  he  never 
was  ordained,  and  that  the  people  never  made  the  claim  that 
he  was.  No  doubt  it  will  be  of  use  to  others  of  the  elders  as 
well  as  ourselves.' 

"For  the  information  of  those  who  send  the  inquiry,  we  will 
state  that  the  event  referred  to  is  carefully  recorded  in  church 
history,  and  has  been  published  frequently.  President  Brig- 
ham  Young  was  installed  as  the  President  of  the  Church,  in  the 
quorum  of  the  First  Presidency,  by  the  Council  of  the  Apostles, 
on  December  5, 1847.  Not  a  ceremony  necessary  to  the  perform- 
ance of  that  solemn  duty  was  omitted — everything  was  done  in 
perfect  order,  and  by  the  united  voice  of  the  Twelve.  President 
Young  had  been  President  of  the  Church  in  his  position  asPres  - 
dent  of  the  presidingquorum,  the  Twelve  Apostles,  for  more  than 
three  years  previous  to  the  date  given,  oreversince  the  martyr- 
dom of  the  Prophet  Joseph.  When,  on  the  date  mentioned, 
President  Young  had  been  duly  installed  as  the  chief  in  the  First 
Presidency,  he  selected  Heber  C.  Kimball  and  Willard  Richards 
as  first  and  second  counselors  respectively,  and  they  were  also 


62  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

duly  set  apart,  being  sustained  by  the  unanimous  vote  of  the 
Twelve.  In  their  case,  as  with  President  Young,  no  ceremony 
was  omitted."— Daily  Deseret  News,  October  5,  1896. 

Comment  is  useless;  but  we  still  insist  upon  answers  to 
these  inquiries,  and  until  they  are  received  we  shall  main- 
tain that  the  gentlemen  named,  to  whom  we  now  add  the 
name  of  Mr.  Snow,  were  not  at  any  time  ordained  to  the 
office  of  President  of  the  church;  and  hence  according  to 
Mr.  Roberts'  position  stated  above,  were  not  properly  con- 
stituted Presidents  of  the  church. 

Again,  Brigham  Young  admits  by  the  strongest  kind  of 
inference  that  he  was  not  ordained  to  the  office  of  Presi- 
dent of  the  church.  He  says: — 

Who  ordained  me  to  be  First  President  of  this  Church  on 
earth?  I  answer,  it  is  the  choice  of  this  people,  and  that  is 
sufficient.—  Millennial  Star,  Vol.  16,  p.  442. 

But  Mr.  Roberts  says  it  is  not  sufficient,  but  that  he 
should  be  ordained.  In  this  Mr.  Roberts  is  right;  but  how 
can  he  sustain  Mr.  Young  who  is  wrong? 

With  President  Smith  the  case  was  different.  He  was 
ordained  by  what  he  considered  proper  authority;  a  record 
of  that  ordination  has  been  made  and  published,  and  is 
open  for  investigation.  We  are  prepared  to  defend  the 
authority  by  which  the  ordination  was  performed,  when 
legitimately  questioned,  but  in  this  connection  we  pass  it 
by  for  the  reason  that  Mr.  Roberts'  objection  to  the  apos- 
tolic authority  exercised  upon  that  occasion  is  based  upon 
his  own  affirmation.  Hear  him: — 

Now,  I  affirm  that  among  all  those  seven  men  who  were 
"called"  to  form  the  majority  of  the  quorum  of  the  twelve,  in 
the  "Reorgani/ation"  not  one  of  them  held  the  apostleship; 
that  they  could  not  give  what  they  did  not  possesss;  that  there- 
fore neither  the  seven  men  called  to  be  apostles,  in  April,  1853, 
received  the  apostleship,  nor  any  whom  they  subsequently 
ordained. — Roberts,  p.  77. 

The  only  answer  that  this  deserves  is  a  counter  affirma- 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  63 

tion ;  but  we  may  consider  the  question  of  authority  more 
fully  in  another  part  of  our  investigation. 

Mr.  Roberts  makes  a  labored  effort  to  show  that  what- 
ever authority  may  have  been  possessed  by  Zenos  H. 
Gurley  and  William  Marks  prior  to  the  death  of  Joseph 
Smith,  they  lost  by  indorsing  the  claims  of  J.  J.  Strang' 
and  others.  But  this  is  only  an  assumption.  We  have 
the  same  right  to  assume  that  all  who  followed  Brigham 
Young  thereby  lost  their  authority. 

Proceeding  upon  the  basis  of  his  affirmation  that  those 
claiming  apostolic  authority  in  the  Reorganization  did  not 
possess  it,  Mr.  Roberts  seeks  to  show  a  contrast  between 
this  organization  and  the  one  effected  in  1830  by  endeavor- 
ing to  show  that  Joseph  Smith,  Oliver  Cowdery,  and  others 
acted  in  the  last-named  organization  by  virtue  of  apostolic 
authority.  Any  position,  no  matter  how  sound,  could 
apparently  be  overthrown  if  the  objector  is  allowed  his 
own  affirmation  as  a  basis  from  which  to  argue;  but  it 
takes  a  great  amount  of  assurance  and  impudence  for  a 
man  to  offer  his  own  assertion  as  basic  evidence. 

The  next  thing  in  Mr.  Roberts'  argument  which  we  deem 
necessary  to  notice  in  this  connection  is  the  following: — 

Josephites  lay  much  stress  upon  the  following  passage  in  one 
of  the  revelations: 

I  say  unto  you  that  ye  have  received  a  commandment  fora 
law  unto  my  church  through  him  whom  I  have  appointed  unto 
you  to  receive  commandments  and  revelations  from  my  hand. 
And  this  ye  shall  know  assuredly,  that  there  is  none  other 
appointed  unto  you  to  receive  commandments  and  revelations 
until  he  be  taken,  if  he  abide  in  me.  But  verily,  verily,  I  say 
unto  you,  that  none  else  shall  be  appointed  unto  this  gift 
except  it  be  through  him,  for  if  it  be  taken  from  him,  he  shall 
not  have  power,  except  to  appoint  another  in  his  stead;  and 
this  shall  be  a  law  unto  you,  that  ye  receive  not  the  teachings 
of  any  that  shall  come  before  you  as  revelations  and  command- 
ments; and  this  I  give  unto  you  that  you  may  not  be  deceived, 
that  you  may  know  that  they  are  not  of  me.  For  verily  I  say 
unto  you,  that  he  that  is  ordained  of  me,  shall  come  in  at  the 
gate  and  be  ordained,  as  I  have  told  you  before,  to  teach  those 


64  TRUE  SUCCESSION   IN 

revelations  which  you  have  received,  and  shall  receive  through 
him  whom  I  have  appointed. 

Josephites  insist  that  this  revelation  provides  that  the  suc- 
cessor of  the  prophet  Joseph  must  be  appointed  by  him. — Rob- 
erts, pp.  82,  83. 

This  is  quite  a  fair  statement  for  Mr.  Eoberts  to  make, 
yet  a  more  careful  man  would  have  stated  our  position 
more  accurately  by  saying,  that  we  insist  that  this  revela- 
tion recognizes  the  authority  of  the  prophet  Joseph  to 
appoint  his  successor,  and  that  if  he  did  so  appoint,  the 
appointment  is  valid. 

After  relating  some  of  the  circumstances  under  which 
the  above  revelation  was  given,  none  of  which  would  in 
anywise  change  the  import  of  the  language,  or  modify  its 
meaning,  Mr.  Roberts  proceeds  to  give  his  understanding 
of  this  passage,  in  the  following  language: — 

The  information  thus  given  officially  to  the  church  was  cal- 
culated to  preserve  the  saints  from  following  unauthorized 
"law-givers."  Through  it  they  learned  that  Joseph,  if  he 
remained  faithful,  would  be  the  law-giver  to  Israel;  if  he  trans- 
gressed he  should  retain  sufficient  of  the  power  of  revelation  to 
designate  whom  the  Lord  would  have  to  succeed  him;  and  in 
that  or  any  other  event  the  man  who  becomes  President  must 
come  in  at  the  gate  and  be  ordained  as  described  in  one  of  the 
laws  of  the  church  previously  given.  There  was  surely  no  need 
after  this  that  any  should  be  deceived.  But  to  argue  from 
what  is  set  down  in  this  revelation  that  the  only  possible  way 
for  a  successor  "in  any  event,"  to  be  appointed  to  the  church 
was  through  Joseph  Smith  the  prophet,  is  clearly  an  error;  for 
the  only  provision  made  in  this  revelation  for  him  to  appoint 
his  successor  is  in  the  event  of  his  own  transgression;  and  I 
affirm  that  Joseph  Smith  was  faithful  to  God  and  the  church 
up  to  the  day  of  his  death. — Roberts,  p.  84. 

We  cannot  avoid  being  amused  at  Mr.  Roberts'  propen- 
sity for  settling  a  question  with  his  characteristic  "7 
affirm"  It  reminds  us  of  a  comment  made  by  one  of  his 
church  associates,  but  political  opponents,  to  the  effect 
that  Mr.  Roberts  never  appeared  before  the  public  without 
saying  by  his  manner,  "/  am  B.  H.  Roberts."  However, 
our  chief  objection  is  to  the  following: — 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  06 

The  only  provision  made  in  this  revelation  for  him  to  appoint 
his  successor  is  in  the  event  of  his  own  transgression. 

We  do  not  so  comprehend  the  language.  The  words, 
"Verily,  verily  I  say  unto  you,  that  none  else  shall  be 
appointed  unto  this  gift  except  it  be  through  him,"  admit 
of  no  modifications  or  exceptions.  The  words  following: 
"for  if  it  be  taken  from  him  he  shall  not  have  power, 
except  to  appoint  another  in  his  stead,"  etc.,  simply  con- 
vey the  impression  that  this  right,  vested  in  him  by  virtue, 
of  his  office,  he  would  retain,  even  in  case  of  transgression, 
to  avoid  confusion  and  uncertainty.  To  take  the  position, 
as  Mr.  Roberts  does,  that  Joseph  Smith  was  not  authorized 
to  appoint  his  successor  except  in  the  event  of  his  trans- 
gression, is  to  make  the  authority  to  appoint  contingent 
upon  transgression. 

We  can  readily  see  the  possibility  and  even  advisability, 
for  this  specific  purpose,  of  a  man  retaining  a  part  of  his 
authority,  already  bestowed,  after  transgression;  but  the 
idea  that  God  would  bestow  authority  not  before  held, 
upon  a  transgressor,  which  would  be  denied  him  if  faithful, 
is  absurd.  We  have  long  been  taught  that  God  bestows 
authority,  honor,  and  power  as  a  reward  for  faithfulness; 
but  it  remained  for  this  illustrious  guardian  of  the  "order 
of  the  priesthood  of  God,  and  the  facts  of  church  history," 
to  inform  us  that  God  reserves  certain  authority  for  the 
transgressor  alone. 

What  to  us  seems  very  peculiar  is  that  notwithstanding 
Mr.  Roberts'  claim  that  Joseph  Smith  had  no  authority  to 
appoint  his  successor  except  in  the  event  of  his  transgres- 
sion, and  notwithstanding  he  affirms  that  Joseph  did  prove 
faithful,  yet  he  asserts,  on  the  authority  of  Brigham 
Young,  that  Joseph  did  appoint  his  brother  Hyrum  to  suc- 
ceed him.  (See  Roberts'  book,  page  66.) 

Certainly  God  would  provide  for  succession  and  the  per- 


66  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

petuity  of  his  work  in  case  of  Joseph's  death,  as  much  so 
as  in  case  of  his  transgression. 

We  af  e  impressed  to  close  this  chapter  with  these  words 
of  Mr.  Roberts,  which  we  commend: — 

Can  it  be  that  God,  with  whom  all  things  are  as  present,  had 
not  foreseen  this  fate  which  overtook  his  servants  Joseph  and 
Hyrum,  and  failed  to  provide  for  such  an  emergency?  O, 
charge  not  the  Lord  with  such  lack  of  wisdom,  or  his  church 
with  such  imperfection  in  its  organization!— Roberts,  p.  85. 


CHAPTER  7. 

ROBERTS'  DISCREPANCIES — TWELVE  SECOND  IN  AUTHORITY — 
TEMPLE  NOT  COMPLETED  —  CHURCH  REJECTED  —  PHATT'B 
REVELATION. 

THOUGH  what  was  done  in  the  case  of  Sidney  Rigdon  at 
Nauvoo  is  not  of  special  importance  to  this  discussion,  we 
wish  briefly  to  note  the  discrepancy  in  Mr.  Roberts'  own 
account,  and  also  his  clash  with  his  own  witnesses.  On 
page  88  of  his  book  Mr.  Roberts  states  of  Mr.  Rigdon: — 

He  sought  to  be  appointed  Guardian  of  the  church,  but  was 
unanimously  rejected  by  the  assembled  quorums  of  priesthood 
and  the  saints  at  Nauvoo. 

This  agrees  with  the  statement  of  Elder  Woodruff  (see 
p.  13),  but  unfortunately  it  conflicts  with  Mr.  Roberts'  own 
statement  that  no  vote  was  taken  on  Rigdon's  claims. 
(See  p.  12.)  This  is  Roberts  versus  Roberts.  At  one  time 
he  agrees  with  the  record  as  published  in  Times  and  Sea- 
sons (see  p.  12),  and  at  the  other  time  with  Wilford  Wood- 
ruff. It  will  not  do;  no  man  can  agree  with  the  record 
and  with  Woodruff  too. 

In  regard  to  the  vote  on  the  sustaining  of  the  Twelve,  he 
is  in  just  as  bad  as  a  muddle.  He  states  that  the  vote 
was  unanimous  (see  p.  12),  and  quotes  the  Millennial  Star 
to  the  same  effect  (see  pp.  13,  14);  but  he  had  previously 
quoted  from  the  journal  of  William  C.  Staines,  that  the 
"vote  was  taken  to  sustain  the  Twelve  in  their  office, 
which  with  a  few  dissenting  voices,  was  passed.  (See  p.  10.) 

Do  not  forget,  reader,  that  this  man  Roberts  is  a  zealous 
defender  of  the  "facts  of  church  history." 

Mr.  Roberts  enters  into  a  long  dissertation  to  show  that 


68  TRUE   SUCCESSION   IN 

the  Twelve  were  next  in  authority  after  the  First  Presi- 
dency, and  hence  should  preside  in  their  absence,  and  that 
the  death  of  Joseph  and  Hyrum  Smith  did  not  disorganize 
the  church.  We  agree  that  the  Twelve  are  next  in  au- 
thority to  the  First  Presidency.  We  have  no  objection  to 
their  presiding  at  any  proper  time  and  place,  providing 
they  do  so  in  their  own  office  and  calling.  We  object  not 
to  their  doing,  but  to  their  manner  of  doing,  and  to  what 
they  did,  as  will  appear  before  the  close  of  this  investiga- 
tion. Nor  do  we  claim  that  the  church  was  disorganized 
by  the  death  of  Joseph  and  Hyrum  Smith.  The  church, 
we  claim,  was  rejected  because  of  its  own  acts  of  trans- 
gression, and  its  failure  to  comply  with  the  commands  of 
God. 
But  Mr.  Roberts  in  speaking  of  the  church  asserts: — 

There  is  nothing  in  all  that  God  has  revealed  to  indicate  that 
he  ever  contemplated  its  disorganization;  but  on  the  contrary, 
there  is  every  encouragement  to  believe  that  it  will  go  on  from 
grace  to  grace,  from  faith  to  faith,  from  one  victory  to  another 
until,  like  the  little  stone  of  Daniel's  vision,  it  shall  become  a 
great  mountain  and  fill  the  whole  earth. — Roberts,  p.  89. 

Mr.  Roberts  may  possibly  make  some  play  upon  the 
word  ''contemplated,"  but  the  careful  reader  cannot 
fail  to  see  that  God  warned  the  saints  that  there  was  dan- 
ger of  the  church  being  rejected  by  him  if  they  did  not  per- 
form the  work  appointed.  In  a  revelation  given  January 
19,  1841,  this  warning  was  given  in  specific  and  plain  lan- 
guage, as  follows: — 

And  again,  verily  I  say  unto  you,  Let  all  my  saints  come 
from  afar;  and  send  ye  swift  messengers,  yea,  chosen  messen- 
gers, and  say  unto  them,  Come  ye,  with  all  your  gold,  and  your 
silver,  and  your  precious  stones,  and  with  all  your  antiquities; 
and  with  all  who  have  knowledge  of  antiquities,  that  will 
come  may  come,  and  bring  the  box  .tree,  and  the  fir  tree, 
and  the  pine  tree,  together  with  all  the  precious  trees  of 
the  earth;  and  with  iron,  with  copper,  and  with  brass,  and 
with  zinc,  and  with  all  your  precious  things  of  the  earth,  and 
build  a  house  to  my  name,  for  the  Most  High  to  dwell  therein; 


OHUROH  PRESIDENCY.  09 

for  there  is  not  a  place  found  on  earth  that  he  may  come  and 
restore  again  that  which  was  lost  unto  you,  or,  which  he  hath 
taken  away,  even  the  fullness  of  the  priesthood;  for  a  bap- 
tismal font  there  is  not  upon  the  earth;  that  they,  my  saints, 
may  be  baptized  for  those  who  are  dead;  for  this  ordinance 
belongeth  to  my  house,  and  cannot  be  acceptable  to  me,  only 
in  the  days  of  your  poverty,  wherein  ye  are  not  able  to  build  a 
house  unto  me.  But  I  command  you,  all  ye  my  saints,  to  build 
a  house  unto  me;  and  I  grant  unto  you  a  sufficient  time  to 
build  a  house  unto  me,  and  during  this  time  your  baptisms 
shall  be  acceptable  unto  me. 

But,  behold,  at  the  end  of  this  appointment,  your  baptisms 
for  your  dead  shall  not  be  acceptable  unto  me;  and  if  you  do 
not  these  things  at  the  end  of  the  appointment,  ye  shall  be 
rejected  as  a  church  with  your  dead,  saith  the  Lord  your  God. 
— D.  C.  107:  10,  11. 

There  was  then  a  possibility  of  the  church  being 
rejected,  and  the  conditions  under  which  it  would  be 
rejected  are  plainly  set  forth.  None  can  misunderstand 
this.  It  forcibly  teaches  that  a  sufficient  time  .would  be 
granted  to  build  a  temple  at  Nauvoo,  and  that  if  it  was  not 
built  at  the  end  of  that  time  the  church  would  be  rejected. 
The  pertinent  inquiry  then  is,  Was  the  temple  built? 

On  page  102  Mr.  Roberts  says: — 

The  Temple  was  completed. 

But  Mr.  Penrose  admits  that  it  was  not  completed,  and 
argues  that  a  completion  was  not  necessary.  He  says: — 

Now  it  is  a  matter  of  history  that  notwithstanding  the  oppo- 
sition of  the  enemies  of  the  Church,  the  murder  of  the  Prophet 
and  Patriarch,  the  threatenings  and  plots  and  ragings  of  mobo- 
crats,  and  the  scantiness  of  means  for  the  great  work  before 
them,  the  Saints  went  to  with  their  might  and  built  that  house 
according  to  the  commandment  of  the  Lord  and  the  pattern 
revealed  to  Joseph  Smith,  which  with  all  the  keys  and  au- 
thority and  power  of  the  Holy  Priesthood  he  had  given  to  the 
Twelve,  and  that  it  was  so  far  completed  before  the  exodus 
from  that  city  that  it  was  dedicated  to  the  Lord,  and  baptisms 
for  the  dead  were  performed  in  the  sacred  font,  and  washings, 
anointings,  endowments  and  other  ordinances  were  solemnized 
therein,  both  for  the  living  and  for  the  dead. 

But,  it  is  objected  by  the  "Reorganizes"  that  the  Temple 
was  not  fully  "completed,"  and  Brigham  Young  is  quoted  as 
saying  after  his  arrival  in  Utah,  that  the  Saints  would  attempt 


70  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

to  build  a  Temple,  and  that  "This  has  been  attempted  several 
times,  but  we  have  never  yet  had  the  privilege  of  completing 
and  enjoying  one."  Our  very  technical  and  disputatious  oppo- 
nents are  never  tired  of  repeating  in  this  connection  the  words 
"complete"  and  "completed."  But  a  careful  examination  of 
the  word  of  the  Lord  fails  to  discover  those  words  or  anything 
equivalent  to  them.  The  Lord  told  his  people  to  build  a  house 
to  him;  they  did  build  and  use  it  for  the  purposes  he  designed. 
They  were  not  permitted  to  remain  and  enjoy  it.  There  were, 
probably,  some  additions  which  would  have  been  made  to 
"complete"  the  edifice  in  the  full  sense  of  the  term,  if  the 
builders  had  remained  to  enjoy  it.  ... 

It  is  surprising  that  sane  people,  however  biased  and  preju- 
diced, could  entertain  the  notion  that  the  just  and  merciful 
Father  and  the'  tender  and  loving  Christ  would  reject  the  peo- 
ple who  had  toiled  so  faithfully  to  obey  the  commandment 
given  them  to  build  a  Temple,  because,  before  they  could  per- 
fectly finish  the  structure  after  building  it,  in  consequence  of 
the  inroad  made  upon  them  by  their  enemies  they  were  com- 
pelled to  forsake  all  their  possessions  for  the  Gospel's  sake! — 
Penrose,  pp.  6,  7,  8. 

The  evidence  shows  that  Mr.  Penrose  is  right,  and  Mr. 
Roberts  wrong,  so  far  as  the  facts  are  concerned  regard- 
ing the  completion  of  the  temple. 

On  June  26,  1897,  President  Joseph  Smith  made  a  state- 
ment on  this  subject  from  which  we  quote  the  following: — 

I  knew  of  the  work  being  done  on  the  temple  at  that  place 
from  the  time  it  began  until  the  building  was  burned  in  1848 
It  was  not  finished.  The  basement  was  fitted  for  occupation, 
and  the  baptismal  font  was  ready  for  use.  The  auditorium  on 
the  first  floor  was  completed  sufficiently  to  be  seated  and  occu- 
pied for  assembly  purposes.  The  stairway  on  the  south  side 
was  completed  for  use.  The  -auditorium  on  second  floor, 
the  stairway  on  north  side,  nor  any  other  portion  of  the 
building  except  those  above-named  were  completed;  though 
the  small  rooms  above  the  second  floor  auditorium  were  used 
by  President  Young  and  the  resident  church  authorities  for 
various  purposes. — Church  History,  Vol.  2,  p.  563. 

Patriarch  A.  H.  Smith  also  made  a  statement  on  July 
2,  1897,  a  part  of  which  is  as  follows: — 

"The  offices  in  the  corner  to  the  left  of  main  entrance  on  the 
ground  floor  were  finished,  but  not  furnished.  The  auditorium 
or  main  meeting  room  was  temporarily  finished;  the  seats  and 
pulpit  were  only  temporary. 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  71 

"The  upper  auditorium;  the  plastering  was  not  done,  the 
floor  was  only  the  rough  boards,  intended  only  for  the  lining, 
was  laid,  and  from  this  floor  upward  the  stairs,  except  In  the 
tower,  or  circular  main  stairs,  were  also  temporary;  the  upper 
floor  which  was  to  have  been  divided  into  numerous  rooms  was 
laid,  and  partitioned  off  with  cotton  factory  cloth,  and  used  for 
some  purposes  before  the  saints  were  driven  away.  .  .  . 

"To  my  knowledge  the  temple  never  was  finished,  and  those 
who  have  been  led  to  believe  it  was.  have  been  deceived.  I 
make  this  statement  freely  for  the  benefit  of  the  present  and 
future  generations."— Church  History,  Vol.  2,  pp.  564,  565. 

Elder  Brigham  Young  is  reported  to  have  used  the  fol- 
lowing language  in  St.  George  Temple,  January  1,  1877: — 

Joseph  located  the  site  for  the  Temple  Block  in  Jackson 
County,  Missouri,  and  pointed  out  the  southeast  corner  of  the 
temple  in  the  year  1831;  also  laid  the  corner  stone  for  a  temple 
in  Far  West,  Caldwell  County,  Missouri.  These  temples  were 
not  built.  We  built  one  in  Nauvoo.  I  could  pick  out  several 
before  me  now  that  were  there  when  it  was  built,  and  know 
just  how  much  was  finished  and  what  was  done.  It  is  true  we 
left  brethren  there  with  instructions  to  finish  it,  and  they  got 
it  nearly  completed  before  it  was  burned;  but  the  saints  did 
not  enjoy  it.  Now  we  have  a  temple  which  will  all  be  finished 
in  a  few  days,  and  of  which  there  is  enough  completed  to  com- 
mence work  therein,  which  has  not  been  done  since  the  days  of 
Adam,  that  we  have  any  knowledge  of. — Journal  qf  Di*cour*e*, 
Vol.  18,  p.  304. 

These  testimonies  are  sufficient  to  show  that  Mr.  Roberts 
was  in  error  about  the  temple  at  Nauvoo  being  completed. 
According  to  the  first  two  statements  it  lacked  very  much 
of  being  complete;  and  though  Mr.  Young  is  not  definite 
as  to  just  what  was  done,  he  expresses  the  thought  as  late 
as  January,  1877,  that  from  the  days  of  Adam  until  then 
there  had  not  been  a  temple  sufficiently  finished  to  com- 
mence work  in. 

However,  Mr.  Penrose  raises  the  point  that  the  word 
"complete"  or  its  equivalent  is  not  found  in  the  revelation, 
and  argues  that  if  they  built  the  house  they  had  complied 
with  the  requirements  whether  they  finished  it  or  not.  We 
give  Mr.  Penrose  credit  for  having  discovered  this  ingen- 
ious method  of  defense.  It  certainly  was  never  thought  of 


72  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

in  early  times,  by  the  people  to  whom  the  revelation  was 
given. 

The  leading  men  of  the  church  understood  it  otherwise 
and  were  somewhat  exercised  over  the  urgent  need  of  com- 
pleting the  temple  speedily.  In  December,  1841,  not  quite  a 
year  after  the  date  of  this  revelation,  an  epistle  was  pub- 
lished signed  by  Brigham  Young,  Heber  C.  Kimball,  Orson 
Pratt,  William  Smith,  Lyman  Wight,  Wilford  Woodruff, 
John  Taylor,  George  A.  Smith,  and  Willard  Richards, 
which  begins  with  these  words: — 

The  building  of  the  Temple  of  the  Lord,  in  the  city  of  Nau- 
voo,  is  occupying  the  first  place  in  the  exertions  and  prayers  of 
many  of  the  saints  at  the  present  time,  knowing  as  they  do, 
that,  if  this  building  is  not  completed,  speedily,  "we  shall  be 
rejected  as  a  church  with  our  dead,"  for  the  Lord  our  God  hath 
spoken  it. — Times  and  Seasons,  Vol.  3,  p  625. 

On  October  1,  1842,  when  Joseph  Smith  was  editor,  the 
Times  and  Seasons  published  an  editorial  under  the  caption 
of  "The  Temple"  which  commences  with  these  words: — 

If  there  is  any  subject  in  which  the  saints  of  the  Most  High 
are  interested  more  than  another,  it  is  in  the  completion  of  that 
edifice,  etc. — Times  and  Seasons,  Vol.  3,  p.  937. 

In  the  same  article  occurs  the  following: — 

The  word  of  the  Lord  is  build  my  house,  and  until  that  com- 
mand is  fulfilled  we  stand  responsible  to  the  great  Jehovah  for 
the  fulfillment  of  it,  and  if  not  done  in  due  time  we  may  have 
to  share  the  same  fate  that  we  have  heretofore  done  in  Missouri. 
—  Times  and  Seasons,  Vol.  3,  p.  939. 

These  statements  serve  to  show  how  this  revelation  was 
understood  by  Joseph  Smith  and  the  Twelve.  We  present 
them  as  clear  and  reliable  proof  that, 

1.  The  idea  of  church  rejection  did  not  originate  with 
the  Reorganization. 

2.  The  authorities  of  the  church  at  the  time  were  con- 
scious that  they  were  required  to  complete  the  temple,  and 
understood  the  dread  consequences  of  a  failure. 

The  temple  not  being  completed,  the  church  stood  rejected, 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  73 

and  neither  the  false  statement  of  Mr.  Roberts  nor  the 
specious  pleading  of  Mr.  Penrose  will  avail  to  cover  this 
serious  result  from  the  research  of  the  honest  investigator. 
Mr.  Penrose,  however,  falls  back  upon  that  part  of  the 
revelation  of  1841  which  says: — 

Verily,  verily  I  say  unto  you,  that  when  I  give  a  command- 
ment to  any  of  the  sons  of  men,  to  do  a  work  unto  my  name, 
and  those  sons  of  men  go  with  all  their  might,  and  with  all 
they  have,  to  perform  that  work,  and  cease  not  their  diligence, 
and  their  enemies  come  upon  them,  and  hinder  them  perform- 
ing that  work;  behold,  it  behooveth  me  to  require  that  work  no 
more  at  the  hands  of  those  sons  of  men,  but  to  accept  of  their 
offerings;  and  the  iniquity  and  transgression  of  my  holy  laws 
and  commandments,  I  will  visit  upon  the  heads  of  those  who 
hindered  my  work,  unto  the  third  and  fourth  generation,  so 
long  as  they  repent  not,  and  hate  me,  saith  the  Lord  God. 
Therefore,  for  this  cause  have  I  accepted  the  offerings  of  those 
whom  I  commanded  to  build  up  a  city  and  a  house  unto  my 
name,  in  Jackson  County,  Missouri,  and  were  hindered  by  their 
enemies,  saith  the  Lord  your  God;  and  I  will  answer  judgment, 
wrath  and  indignation,  wailing  and  anguish,  and  gnashing  of 
teeth,  upon  their  heads,  unto  the  third  and  fourth  generation, 
so  loner  as  they  repent  not,  and  hate  me,  saith  the  Lord  your 
God.— D.  C.  107:  15. 

This,  it  will  be  seen,  has  a  special  application  to  the 
work  .which  was  to  have  been  done  in  Jackson  County, 
Missouri.  It  may  also  have  a  general  application,  and  we 
believe  it  does;  but  it  will  be  observed  that  a  release  from 
obligations  is  based  upon  their  going  "with  all  their  might" 
and  ceasing  not  "their  diligence."  That  the  saints  at  Nauvoo 
failed  to  do  this  may  not  generally  be  known ;  but  that 
they  cannot  avail  themselves  of  the  provision  made,  for 
release  from  obligations  enjoined,  is  evident  from  the  fol- 
lowing words  in  the  revelation  itself: — 

I  grant  unto  you  a  sufficient  time  to  build  a  house  unto  me. 

If  the  Lord,  according  to  this. promise,  did  grant  unto 
them  sufficient  time,  and  they  failed  to  accomplish  the  work 
within  that  time,  then  it  is. evident  that  they  did  not  use 
due  diligence,  and  hence  must  accept  the  consequences 


74  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

of  rejection,  and  of  the  same  fate  they  shared  in  Missouri. 
This  latter  consequence  is  too  terribly  true  to  be  denied, 
and  happy  is  he  who  will  accept  the  first-named  conse- 
quence and  take  proper  steps  to  restore  himself  to  the 
favor  of  God. 

William  Smith  and  Lyman  Wight,  two  of  the- signers  of 
the  above  letter,  recognized  the  consequences;  viz.,  of  dis- 
organization, which  they,  in  1841,  were  apprehensive  of. 
As  proof  in  the  case  of  William  Smith  we  cite  the  letter  of 
James  Kay,  written  in  November,  1845.  (See  p.  18.) 

In  1851,  Lyman  Wight  wrote: — 

"The  church  mos'tly  went  from  there  [Kirtland,  Ohio]  to 
Missouri,  where  they  commenced  another  house  from  which 
they  were  driven  to  the  State  of  Illinois,  where  we  were  com- 
manded to  build  a  house  or  temple  to  the  Most  High  God.  We 
were  to  have  a  sufficient  time  to  build  that  house,  during  which 
time  our  baptisms  for  our  dead  should  be  acceptable  in  the 
river.  If  we  did  not  build  within  this  time  we  were  to  be 
rejected  as  a  church,  we  and  our  dead  together.  Both  the  tem- 
ple and  baptizing  went  very  leisurely,  till  the  temple  was  some- 
where in  building  the  second  story,  when  Bro.  Joseph  from  the 
stand  announced  the  alarming  declaration  that  baptism  for  our 
dead  was  no  longer  acceptable  in  the  river.  As  much  to  say 
the  time  for  building  the  temple  had  passed  by,  and  both  we 
and  our  dead  were  rejected  together.  ... 

"The  church  now  stands  rejected  together  with  their  dead. 
The  church  being  rejected  now  stands  alienated  from  her  God 
in  every  sense  of  the  word."— Church  History,  Vol.  2,  p.  790. 

What  but  blind  ambition  to  rule  prevented  others  of  the 
signers  from  recognizing  the  consequence  so  apparent? 

Again,  Parley  P.  Pratt,  though  not  one  of  the  signers, 
recognized  that  the  church  had  been  disorganized  and  that 
a  reorganization  was  necessary.  Elder  Pratt  relates  that 
as  he  was  returning  to  Nauvoo  after  the  death  of  Joseph 
and  Hyrum,  while  "weighed  down  as  it  were  unto  death," 
he  cried  unto  the  Lord  for  direction,  asking  these  two 
questions: — 

Shall  I  tell  them  to  fly  to  the  wilderness  and  deserts?  Or, 
shall  I  tell  them  to  stay  at  home  and  take  care  of  themselves, 
and  continue  to  build  the  temple? 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  75 

The  answer  was  as  follows: — 

"Lift  up  your  head  and  rejoice;  for  behold!  it  is  well  with 
my  servants  Joseph  and  Hyrum.  My  servant  Joseph  still  holds 
the  keys  of  my  kingdom  in  this  dispensation,  and  he  shall  stand 
in  due  time  on  the  earth,  in  the  flesh,  and  fulfill  that  to  which 
he  is  appointed.  Go  and  say  unto  my  people  in  Nauvoo,  that 
they  shall  continue  to  pursue  their  daily  duties  and  take  care  of 
themselves,  and  make  no  movement  in  church  government  to 
reorganize  or  alter  anything  until  the  return  of  the  remainder 
of  the  quorum  of  the  Twelve.  But  exhort  them  that  they  con- 
tinue to  build  the  House  of  the  Lord  which  I  have  commanded 
them  to  build  in  Nauvoo." — Autobiography  of  Parley  P.  Pratt, 
p.  371. 

This  recognizes  the  necessity  of  a  reorganization,  which 
carries  with  it  the  recognition  of  a  disorganization. 

We  regret  to  notice  that  Mr.  Roberts  in  quoting  the 
above  revelation  omits  the  prefix  "re"  and  makes  it  to  read 
"organize"  (See  his  book,  p.  94.) 

It  will  be  observed  that  Elder  Pratt  claims  this  to  be 
from  God.  If  so,  God  recognized  the  necessity  of  a  .Reor- 
ganization. Further,  the  answer  to  the  above  questions  is 
clear  that  the  people  were  to  remain  in  Nauvoo  and  con- 
tinue to  build  the  temple,  instead  of  flying  to  the  "wilder- 
ness and  deserts." 

It  is  not  necessary  in  this  connection  to  discuss  whether 
the  Twelve  had  authority  to  go  into  Nauvoo  and  regulate 
or  tiot.  We  agree  that  their  mission  was  in  all  the  world 
and  that  no  part  of  the  world  was  exempt  from  their  juris- 
diction; but  there  was  no  part  of  the  world  where  they 
might  become  a  law  unto  themselves.  Wherever  they 
might  be  they  were  required  to  act  in  harmony  with  the 
law  of  God  and  in  accordance  with  the  duty  of  their  calling, 
or  their  acts  would  not  be  valid.  The  issue  between  us 
depends  upon  what  they  did,  not  upon  where  they  did  it. 


CHAPTER  8. 

KEYS  OP  AUTHOKITY — KEYS  AND  ORACLES — PRATT'S  REVELATION 
—  ORACLES  TO  THE  TWELVE  —  WILLIAM  MARKS  —  ROBERTS' 
CLIMAX. 

MR.  ROBERTS  opens  his  eighth  chapter  as  follows: — 

LET  us  now  proceed  to  the  proof  that  Joseph  Smith,  the 
prophet,  did  not  take  the  keys  of  authority  with  him  from  the 
church,  when  he  fell  a  martyr  to  the  truth,  but  that  said  keys 
of  authority  remained  with  the  church,  more  especially  with 
the  quorum  of  the  Twelve. 

On  March  8th,  1833,  the  Lord  said  to  Joseph  Smith: 

Verily,  I  say  unto  you,  the  keys  of  this  kingdom  shall  never 
be  taken  from  you,  while  thou  art  in  the  world,  neither  in  the 
world  to  come;  nevertheless,  through  you  shall  the  oracles  be 
given  unto  another;  yea,  even  to  the  church! 

Joseph  and  Hyrum,  then,  did  not  take  with  them  the 
"oracles"  of  God  necessary  to  make  the  church  efficient  in 
accomplishing  the  work  that  God  designed  it  to  perform. 
Though  the  keys  given  to  the  prophet  were  never  to  be  taken 
from  him,  either  in  this  world  or  that  which  is  to  come — 
though  for  ever  he  is  to  stand  as  the  President  of  the  great  dis- 
pensation of  the  fullness  of  times — yet  the  keys  of  authority  and 
power  committed  to  his  hands  may  be  given  to  another,  "even 
to  the  church,"  not  to  his  posterity,  mark  you. 

This  revelation  makes  it  easy  to  believe  that  there  was  inspi- 
ration in  the  declaration  of  Brigham  Young,  uttered  when  he 
heard  for  the  first  time  of  the  martyrdom  of  Joseph  and 
Hyrum.  He  was  at  Peterboro,  N.  H.,  when  the  sad  intelligence 
reached  him: — 

The  first  thing  that  I  thought  of  was  whether  Joseph  had 
taken  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  with  him  from  the  earth. 
Brother  Orson  Pratt  sat  on  my  left,  we  were  both  leaning  back 
in  our  chairs.  Bringing  my  hand  down  on  my  knee,  I  said,  the 
keys  of  the  kingdom  are  right  here  with  the  church. — Roberts,  pp. 
93,  94. 

Why  Mr.  Roberts  should  be  anxious  to  prove  the  nega- 
tive of  that  which  we  have  not  affirmed,  we  do  not  know; 
but  we  have  not  affirmed  that  Joseph  took  the  keys  of 
authority  with  him  from  the  church. 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  77 

Mr.  Roberts'  explanation  of  the  above  quotation  is  not 
very  clear,  but  he  evidently  confounds  the  words  "keys" 
and  "oracles,"  making  them  to  have  the  same  meaning. 
This  is  evidently  erroneous.  We  give  the  definitions  of 
the  two  words  as  defined  by  Webster: — 

Key:— 

1.  An  instrument  by  means  of  which  the  bolt  of  a  lock  is  shot 
or  drawn;  usually,  a  removable  metal  instrument  fitted  to  the 
mechanism  of  a  particular  lock  and  operated  by  turning  in  its 
place. 

2.  An  instrument  which  is  turned  like  a  key  in  fastening  or 
adjusting  any  mechanism;  as,  a  watch  key;  a  bed  key,  etc. 

3.  That  part  of  an  instrument  or  machine  which  serves  as 
the  means  of  operating  it;   as,  a  telegraph  key;   the  keys  of  a 
pianoforte,  or  of  a  typewriter. 

4.  A  position  or  condition  which  affords  entrance,  control,  or 
possession,  etc.;  as,  the  key  of  a  line  of  defense;   the  key  of  a 
country;  the  key  of  a  political  situation.     Hence,  that  which 
serves  to  unlock,  open,  discover,  or  solve  something  unknown 
or  difficult;  as,  the  key  to  a  riddle;  the  key  to  a  problem. 

Those  who  are  accustomed  to  reason  have  got  the  true  key  of 
books.  Locke. 

Who  keeps  the  keys  of  all  the  creeds.  Tennyson. 

5.  That  part  of  a  mechanism  which  serves  to  lock  up,  make 
fast,  or  adjust  to  position. 

Power  of  the  keys  (Eccl.},  the  authority  claimed  by  the  min- 
istry in  some  Christian  churches  to  administer  the  discipline  of 
the  church,  and  to  grant  or  withhold  its  privileges; — so  called 
from  the  declaration  of  Christ,  "I  will  give  unto  thee  the  keys 
of  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  Matt.  xvi.  19. 

Oracle: — 

1.  The  answer  of  a  god,  or  some  person  reputed  to  be  a  god, 
to  an  inquiry  respecting  some  affair  or  future  event,  as  the  suc- 
cess of  an  enterprise  or  battle. 

Whatso'er  she  saith,  for  oracles  must  stand.        Drayton. 

2.  Hence:     The  deity  who  was  supposed  to  give  the  answer; 
also,  the  place  where  it  was  given. 

The  oracles  are  dumb; 
No  voice  or  hideous  hum 
Runs  through  the  arched  roof  in  words  deceiving.    Milton. 

3.  The  communications,  revelations,  or  messages  delivered 
by  God  to  the  prophets;    also,  the  entire  sacred  Scriptures — 
usually  in  the  plural. 


78  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

The  first  principles  of  the  oracles  of  God.     Heb.  v.  12. 

4.  (Jewish  Antiq.)  The  sanctuary,  or  Most  Holy  place  in  the 
temple;  also,  the  temple  itself.  1  Kings  vi.  19.  . 

Siloa's  brook,  that  flow'd 
Fast  by  the  oracle  of  God.  Milton. 

5.  One  who  communicates  a  divine  command;   an  angel;   a 
prophet. 

God  hath  now  sent  his  living  oracle 

Into  the  world  to  teach  his  final  will.        Milton. 

6.  Any  person   reputed  uncommonly  wise;    one  whose  deci- 
sions are  regarded  as  of  great  authority;    as,  a  literary  oracle. 
"Oracles  of  mode."  Tennyson. 

The  country  rectors  .  .  .  thought  him  an  oracle  on  points  of 
learning.  Macaulay. 

7.  A  wise  sentence  or  decision  of  great  authority. 

A  careful  inspection  will  convince  the  reader  that  no 
amount  of  straining  will  under  any  circumstances  give 
them  an  equivalent  meaning.  A  key  is  an  instrument  by 
which  a  person  unlocks,  while  an  oracle  is  that  which  is 
obtained  by  the  unlocking;  or  in  "some  cases  may  be 
applied  to  the  person  who  uses  the  key.  The  above  pas- 
sage being  figurative,  the  "keys"  evidently  represent  the 
authority,  while  the  "oracles"  mean  the  revelations  of 
God  received  by  him  who  holds  the  keys,  and  is  to  be 
understood  in  the  same  sense  as  the  following: — 

I  give  unto  you  my  servant  Joseph,  to  be  a  presiding  elder 
over  all  my  church,  to  be  a  translator,  a  revelator,  a  seer,  and 
prophet.  I  give  unto  him  for  counselors  my  servant  Sidney 
Rigdon  and  my  servant  William  Law,  that  these  may  consti- 
tute a  quorum  and  first  presidency,  to  receive  the  oracles  for 
the  whole  church.— Doc.  and  Cov.  107:39. 

The  evident  meaning,  then,  of  the  passage  in  question  is 
that  Joseph  held  the  authority  to  receive  revelation  and 
that  through  him  the  revelations  thus  received  were  to  be 
given  to  the  church.  However,  if  we  grant  that  the  word 
1  'oracles"  in  this  passage  is  to  be  applied  to  the  persons 
who  deliver  the  revelations  of  God  to  the  people,  then  it 
follows  from  the  language,  '  'through  you  shall  the  oracles  be 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  79 

given  to  another;  yea,  even  unto  the  church"  that  Joseph 
Smith  was  to  appoint  his  successor  and  through  him  his 
successor  was  to  be  presented  to  the  church,  thus  sustain- 
ing our  contention  that  Joseph  Smith  was  to  appoint  his 
successor. 

Further,  if  we  were  to  admit  Mr.  Roberts'  claim,  illog- 
ical and  untenable  as  it  is,  that  "oracles"  and  "keys"  are 
synonymous,  and  that  the  word  "oracles"  in  this  revela- 
tion refers  to  the  keys  of  authority  delivered  to  the 
Twelve,  still  the  issue  between  us  is  not  settled;  for  that 
part  of  the  paragraph  which  Mr.  Roberts  does  not  quote 
administers  a  solemn  warning  unto  those  who  "receive  the 
oracles  of  God."  It  reads  as  follows: — 

And  all  they  who  receive  the  oracles  of  God,  let  them  beware 
how  they  hold  them,  lest  they  are  accounted  as  a  light  thing, 
and  are  brought  under  condemnation  thereby;  and  stumble  and 
fall,  when  the  storms  descend,  and  the  winds  blow,  and  the 
rains  descend,  and  beat  upon  their  house. — Doc.  and  Cov.  87:2. 

Then,  whatever  the  "oracles"  may  be,  God's  approval  of 
those  receiving  them  depends  upon  how  they  hold  them. 
So  that  in  any  event,  and  upon  the  basis  of  any  interpreta- 
tion, the  issue  still  rests  upon  what  was  done,  and  how  it  was 
done.  We  propose  to  hold  these  gentlemen  to  this  issue 
and  to  demand  that  they  answer  for  their  acts. 

Mr.  Roberts  next  introduces  the  revelation  of  P.  P. 
Pratt,  which  we  have  noticed  on  page  75;  but  there  is 
nothing  in  it  to  help  his  case.  As  we  have  shown,  there 
are  two  points  in  it  that  are  against  the  people  he  repre- 
sents; viz.:  the  necessity  of  reorganization,  and  the  dis- 
couragement plainly  given  to  fleeing  into  the  wilderness 
and  desert.  The  only  comfort  he  can  possibly  get  out  of 
it  is  that  the  Twelve  are  recognized,  and  the  reorganiza- 
tion was  to  be  postponed  until  they  returned.  This  we  do 
not  object  to.  We  think  they  should  have  been  respected 
and  their  proper  authority  recognized,  and  that  it  would 
have  been  decidedly  improper  to  take  any  steps  towards  a 


80  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

reorganization  before  their  return;  but  tfyis  does  not  carry 
with  it  the  approval  of  what  they  did  after  their  return. 

After  some  immaterial  wanderings  Mr.  Roberts  ap- 
proaches the  point  as  follows: — 

It  now  remains  for  me  to  prove  that  the  prophet  Joseph  did 
give  the  "oracles  to  another" — and  that  they  remained  with 
the  church. 

On  the  7th  of  August,  1844,  at  a  meeting  of  the  Twelve  Apos- 
tles, high  council  of  the  Nauvoo  stake,  and  high  priests,  held 
in  the  Seventies'  Hall,  in  a  speech  following  one  made  by  Sid- 
ney Iligdon,  Brigham  Young,  speaking  of  the  Twelve,  said: 

Joseph  conferred  upon  our  heads  all  the  keys  and  powers 
belonging  to  the  apostleship  which  he  himself  held  before  he 
was  taken  away,  and  no  man  or  set  of  men  can  get  between 
Joseph  and  the  Twelve  in  this  world  or  the  world  to  come. 
How  often  has  Joseph  said  to  the  Twelve,  "I  have  laid  the 
foundation  and  you  must  build  thereon,  for  upon  your  shoul- 
ders the  kingdom  rests." 

Upon  this  statement  of  Brigham  Young,  quoted  from 
the  doubtful  authority  of  Millennial  Star,  volume  25,  and 
supposedly  supported  by  the  testimony  of  others,  Mr. 
Roberts  bases  his  case  that  Joseph  Smith  conferred  all  the 
keys  held  by  himself  upon  the  Twelve.  If  such  an  occur- 
rence ever  transpired  it  is  impossible  to  determine  by  the 
testimony  of  the  witnesses  just  what  Joseph  did  say  on  the 
occasion.  Evidently  they  do  not  remember,  as  no  two  of 
them  give  the  same  words,  and  where  any  one  of  them 
speaks  twice  he  fails  to  reproduce  the  same  language. 

That  the  reader  may  compare  them  we  reproduce  such 
of  them  as  we  have  at  hand.  We  have  one  above  from 
Brigham  Young;  here  is  another: — 

Joseph  told  the  Twelve,  the  year  before  he  died,  "there  is 
not  one  key  or  power  to  be  bestowed  on  this  church  to  lead  the 
people  into  the  celestial  gate  but  I  have  given  you,  showed  you, 
and  talked  it  over  to  you;  the  kingdom  is  set  up,  and  you  have 
the  perfect  pattern,  and  you  can  go  and  build  up  the  kingdom, 
and  go  in  at  the  celestial  gate,  taking  your  train  with  you." — 
Millennial  Star,  Vol.  10,  p.  115. 

Parley  P.  Pratt  renders  it  as  follows: — 


CHURCH   PRESIDENCY.  81 

"I  know  not  why;  but  for  some  reason  I  am  constrained  to 
hasten  my  preparations,  and  to  confer  upon  the  Twelve  all  the 
ordinances,  keys,  covenants,  endowments,  and  sealing  ordi- 
nances of  the  priesthood,  and  so  set  before  them  a  pattern  in 
all  things  pertaining:  to  the  sanctuary  and  the  endowment 
therein." — Millennial  Star,  Vol.  5,  p.  151. 

Orson  Hyde's  version  is  as  follows: — 

Brother  Joseph  said  some  time  before  he  was  murdered,  "If  I 
am  taken  away,  upon  you,  the  Twelve,  will  rest  the  responsi- 
bility of  leading  this  people,  and  do  not  be  bluffed  off  by  any 
man.  Go  forward  in  the  path  of  your  duty  though  you  walk 
into  death.  If  you  will  be  bold  and  maintain  your  ground  the 
great  God  will  sustain  you." — Times  and  Seasons,  Vol.  5,  p.  650. 

Wilford  Woodruff  has  spoken  of  this  several  times,  but 
not  using  the  same  language  twice.  Here  are  some  of  his 
statements: — 

Or  has  the  Prophet  Joseph  found  Elder  Rigdon  in  his  coun- 
cils when  he  organized  the  quorum  of  the  Twelve,  a  few 
months  before  his  death,  to  prepare  them  for  the  endowment? 
And  when  they  received  their  endowment,  and  actually 
received  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  oracles  of  God, 
keys  of  revelation,  and  the  pattern  of  heavenly  things;  and 
thus  addressing  the  Twelve,  exclaimed,  "Upon  your  shoulders 
the  kingdom  rests,  and  you  must  round  up  your  shoulders,  and 
bear  it;  for  I  have  had  to  do  it  until  now.  But  now  the  respon- 
sibility rests  upon  you.  It  mattereth  not  what  becomes  of 
me." — Times  and  Seasons,  Vol.  5,  p.  098. 

This  was  in  1844,  but  the  language  was  not  strong 
enough  to  answer  the  purpose  in  1892,  so  Mr.  Woodruff 
gives  it  as  follows: — 

I  remember  the  last  speech  that  he  ever  gave  us  before  his 
death.  It  was  before  we  started  upon  our  mission  to  the  East. 
He  stood  upon  his  feet  some  three  hours.  The  room  was  filled  as 
with  consuming  fire,  his  face  was  as  clear  as  amber,  and  he  was 
clothed  upon  by  the  power  of  God.  He  laid  before  us  our  duty. 
He  laid  before  us  the  fullness  of  this  great  work  of  God;  and  in 
his  remarks  to  us  he  said:  "I  have  had  sealed  upon  my  head 
every  key,  every  power,  every  principle  of  life  and  salvation 
that  God  has  ever  given  to  any  man  who  ever  lived  upon  the 
face  of  the  earth.  And  these  principles  and  this  Priesthood 
and  power  belong  to  this  great  and  last  dispensation  which  the 
God  of  Heaven  has  set  His  hand  to  establish  in  the  earth." 
"Now,"  said  he  addressing  the  Twelve,  "I  have  sealed  upon 


82  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

your  heads  every  key,  every  power,  and  every  principle  which 
the  Lord  has  sealed  upon  my  head."  Continuing,  he  said,  "I 
have  lived  so  Ion? — up  to  the  present  time— I  have  been  in  the 
midst  of  this  people,  and  in  the  great  work  and  labor  of  redemp- 
tion. I  have  desired  to  live  to  see  this  Temple  [at  Nauvoo] 
built.  But  I  shall  never  live  to  see  it  completed;  but  you  will." 
.  .  .  [If  he  said  this  the  prophecy  failed.  Not  one  of  the  then 
Twelve  lived  to  see  it  completed. — H.  C.  S.] 

After  addressing  us  in  this  manner  he  said:  "I  tell  you  the 
burden  of  this  kingdom  now  rests  upon  your  shoulders;  you  have 
got  to  bear  it  off  in  all  the  world,  and  if  you  don't  do  it  you 
will  be  damned." — Roberts,  pp.  118,  119. 

In  April,  1898,  Mr.  Woodruff  is  reported  as  quoting 
Joseph  Smith,  as  follows: — 

You  Apostles  of  the  Lamb  of  God  have  been  chosen  to  carry 
out  the  purposes  of  the  Lord  upon  the  earth.  Now,  I  have 
received,  as  the  Prophet,  Seer  and  Revelator,  standing  at  the 
head  of  this  dispensation,  every  key,  every  ordinance,  every 
principle  and  every  Priesthood  that  belongs  to  the  last  dispensa- 
tion and  fulness  of  times.  And  I  have  sealed  all  these  things 
upon  your  heads.  Now,  you  Apostles,  if  you  do  not  rise  up 
and  bear  off  this  kingom,  as  I  have  given  it  to  you,  you  will  be 
damned. — Penrose,  p.  23. 

Examine  these  several  statements  carefully,  and  one 
thing  will  be  very  evident;  viz.,  that  we  are  not  sure  that 
we  have  the  words  of  Joseph  Smith,  for  the  language  is 
not  given  twice  alike.  If  we  have  his  words,  tell  us  in 
which  statement  they  are,  that  we  may  consider  it. 
Another  point  we  notice;  that  is,  that  the  further  we  get 
from  the  time  spoken  of  the  stronger  is  the  language  used. 
This  looks  suspicious,  manifesting  as  it  does  a  exposition 
upon  the  part  of  the  witnesses  to  exaggerate,  which  grew 
upon  them  with  time.  Brigham  Young  first  speaks  of 
that  which  was  bestowed  being  the  keys  of  the  "apostle- 
ship"  Later  he  mentions  it  as  the  keys  to  lead  into  the 
celestial  gate. 

Elder  Pratt  says  nothing  of  keys  or  leadership. 

Elder  Hyde  is  a  little  more  modest  than  Brigham;  he 
does  not  say  a  word  about  keys,  but  simply  that  the 
responsibility  to  lead  was  upon  them. 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  83 

In  1844  Elder  Woodruff  speaks  freely  of  keys  in  his  pre- 
lude, but  does  not  quote  Joseph  as  using  the  word,  but 
simply  that  the  responsibility  of  the  kingdom  rests  upon 
the  shoulders  of  the  Twelve. 

None  of  these  testimonies  is  inconsistent  with  our  posi- 
tion. But  when  this  growing  tendency  to  exaggerate 
manifested  itself  in  1892,  how  was  it?  Then  it  was  made 
to  appear  that  Joseph  bestowed  upon  the  Twelve  every 
key,  power,  and  principle  which  he  (Joseph)  had  held. 
Yet  this  is  too  indefinite  for  the  purpose,  in  1898,  and 
hence  it  is  stated  that  every  key,  ordinance,  principle,  and 
priesthood  belonging  to  the  last  dispensation,  and  which 
Joseph  Smith  held  as  Prophet,  Seer,  and  Revelator,  was 
bestowed  upon  the  Twelve.  This  story  has  not  lost  any- 
thing; but  if  any  man  can  tell  what  Joseph  Smith  said 
upon  that  occasion,  let  him  come  forward  with  it  and  we 
will  give  it  respectful  consideration. 

In  the  meantime  we  will  concede  the  probability  that 
Joseph  Smith  told  the  Twelve  that  the  responsibility  of 
the  work  would  rest  upon  them,  and  that  by  the  legitimate 
exercise  of  the  authority  vested  in  them  the  people  could 
be  led  into  the  celestial  gates;  but  if  so  it  would  not  justify 
them  in  assuming  to  act  outside  the  duty  of  their  calling 
as  defined  in  the  law. 

Further,  if  in  addition  to  the  duty  of  the  Twelve,  as 
defined  in  the  law,  Joseph  bestowed  upon  them  as  a  quorum 
all  the  priesthood,  power,  and  authority  of  the  First  Presi- 
dency, what  need  had  they  for  a  First  Presidency?  And 
what  advantage  was  gained  to  the  church  by  the  forming 
of  a  First  Presidency  in  1847,  and  upon  three  different 
occasions  since?  • 

Mr.  Roberts  then  introduces  a  statement  from  William 
Marks  to  the  effect  that  he  had  been  convinced  that  "the 
Twelve  were  the  proper  persons  to  lead  the  church."  Sup- 
pose he  did  so  state.  He  may  have  been  mistaken. 


84  TRUE  SUCCESSION   IN 

Again,  his  indorsement  of  their  being  the  proper  ones  was 
not  an  indorsement  of  their  subsequent  acts  as  leaders. 

We  do  not  affirm  that  Elder  William  Marks  never  erred; 
according  to  the  prediction  made  of  him  by  Joseph  Smith, 
published  by  the  Utah  people  themselves,  the  enemy  was 
seemingly  to  gain  some  advantage  over  him,  but  he  was 
finally  to  overcome  because  the  hand  of  the  Lord  would  be 
on  his  behalf.  Here  is  the  passage: — 

I  would  just  say  to  brother  Marks,  that  I  saw  in  a  vision 
while  on  the  road,  that  whereas  he  was  closely  pursued  by  an 
innumerable  concourse  of  enemies,  and  as  they  pressed  upon 
him  hard,  as  if  they  were  about  to  devour  him,  and  had  seem- 
ingly obtained  some  degree  of  advantage  over  him,  but  about 
this  time  a  chariot  of  fire  came,  and  near  the  place,  even  the 
Angel  of  the  Lord  put  forth  his  hand  unto  brother  Marks,  and 
said  unto  him,  "Thou  art  my  son,  come  here,"  and  immediately 
he  was  caught  up  in  the  chariot,  and  rode  away  triumphantly 
out  of  their  midst.  And  again  the  Lord  said,  I  will  raise  thee 
up  for  a  blessing  unto  many  people.  Now  the  particulars  of 
this  whole  matter  cannot  be  written  at  this  time,  but  the  vision 
was  evidently  given  to  me  that  I  might  know  that  the  hand  of 
the  Lord  would  be  on  his  behalf. — Millennial  Star,  Vol.  16,  p. 
131. 

Will  our  opponents  explain  from  their  standpoint  in 
what  way  God  raised  up  William  Marks  to  become  "a 
blessing  unto  many  people"? 

Mr.  Roberts  exclaims  as  a  climax: — 

Since  the  church  has  never  been  disorganized,  any  organiza- 
tion claiming  to  be  the  "Reorganized  church  of  Jesus  Christ  of 
Latter-day  Saints"  is  a  counterfeit,  and  writes  fraud  in  the 
very  title  of  it. — Roberts,  p.  99. 

To  this  we  simply  reply  by  a  counter  assertion,  for 
which  we  have  laid  the  foundation,  and  say:  Since  the 
church  has  been  disorganized,  any  Latter  Day  Saint 
organization  not  "claiming  to  be  the  'Reorganized  Church 
of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints'  is  a  counterfeit,  and 
writes  fraud  in  the  very  title  of  it." 


CHAPTER  9. 

THE  TWELVE  —  NECESSITY  FOB  A  REORGANIZATION  —  CHURCH 
HELD  TOGETHER  —  BUILDING  OF  NAUVOO,  ETC.  —  DRIVEN  TO 
ROCKY  MOUNTAINS— JOSEPH'S  PROPHECY — PRATT'S  STATEMENT 
— ISAIAH'S  PROPHECY  —  THE  EXODUS  —  SEVENTIES  —  BAPTISM 
FOR  THE  DEAD — TEMPLE  BUILDING — PERSECUTION. 

ME.  ROBERTS  opens  his  ninth  chapter  with  the  following 
declaration: — 

THERE  is  yet  another  line  of  evidence  to  be  adduced  in 
support  of  the  great  truth  that  the  church  has  never  been 
disorganized  in  this  dispensation,  and  therefore  has  never  stood 
in  need  of  a  "reorganization."  That  evidence  is  based  upon 
the  favor  and  blessing  of  God  which  has  followed  the  church  of 
Christ  led  by  the  Twelve  Apostles  from  Nauvoo,  and  their  suc- 
cessors in  the  leadership  of  the  church. — Roberts,  p.  100. 

This  opens  the  real  issue,  and  most  cheerfully  do  we  meet 
it.  By  way  of  preliminary,  however,  we  suggest  that  Mr. 
Roberts  is  unfortunate  in  having  to  represent  a  people  on 
this  issue  who  have  conceded  the  necessity  of  a  reorganiza- 
tion. This  we  have  already  shown  from  the  purported 
revelation  of  Parley  P.  Pratt.  (See  p.  75.) 

In  addition  to  that  we  present  a  statement  from  a  Gen- 
eral Epistle  of  the  Quorum  of  Twelve,  written  at  Winter 
Quarters,  Omaha  Nation,  December  23,  1847,  and  signed 
by  Brigham  Young,  President,  and  Willard  Richards, 
Clerk,  as  follows: — 

Since  the  murder  of  President  Joseph  Smith,  many  false 
prophets  and  false  teachers  have  arisen,  and  tried  to  deceive 
many,  during  which  time  we  have  mostly  tarried  with  the  body 
of  the  Church,  or  been  seeking  a  new  location,  leaving  those 
prophets  and  teachers  to  run  their  race  undisturbed,  who  have 
died  natural  deaths,  or  committed  suicides;  and  we  now,  hav- 
ing it  in  contemplation  soon  to  reorganize  the  Church  accord- 
ing to  the  original  pattern,  with  a  First  Presidency  and 


86  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

Patriarch,  feel  that  it  will  be  the  privilege  of  the  Twelve,  eie 
long,  to  spread  abroad  among  the  nations,  not  to  hinder  the 
gathering,  but  to  preach  the  gospel,  and  push  the  people,  the 
honest  in  heart,  together  from  the  four  quarters  of  the  earth. — 
Millennial  Star,  Vol.  10,  p.  86. 

Mr.  Roberts  tries  to  dispose  of  this  by  asserting  that  it 
was  the  First  Presidency  that  was  to  be  reorganized,  and 
not  the  church. 

We  can  afford  to  leave  this  with  simply  placing  the  exact 
language  upon  record.  The  language  cannot  possibly  be 
distorted  to  make  the  reorganization  apply  to  the  First 
Presidency  alone;  but  it  is  clear  and  explicit,  "reorganize 
the  Church  according  to  the  original  pattern,  with  a  First 
Presidency  and  Patriarch." 

Again,  according  to  Mr.  Roberts'  own  interpretation 
how  can  he  escape  connecting  the  Patriarch  with  the  First 
Presidency,  instead  of  limiting  it  to  the  Presidency? 

But  that  we  may  not  seem  to  misrepresent  Mr.  Roberts 
we  append  his  comment,  that  the  readers  may  see  him  and 
his  methods  in  their  true  light: — 

Josephites  try  to  make  it  appear  from  a  statement  in  the  gen- 
eral epistle  of  the  Twelve  issued  in  1847,  to  the  effect  that  they 
were  about  to  "reorganize"  the  church  with  a  President  and 
two  counselors,  that  President  Brigham  Young  and  his  associ- 
ates considered  the  church  disorganized,  (see  discourse  by 
Alexander  H.  Smith,  The  Saints'  Herald  supplement  of  June 
24th,  1893.)  But  it  will  be  observed  that  the  reorganization 
contemplated  in  the  epistle  of  the  Twelve  is  limited  to  reor- 
ganizing the  First  Presidency,  the  only  quorum  that  was  disor- 
ganized.— Footnote,  p.  100. 

We  are  now  ready  to  consider  in  their  order  Mr.  Rob- 
erts' specifications  in  support  of  his  theory  that  God's 
favor  and  blessing  have  followed  the  church  which  he  rep- 
resents. He  says: — 

The  first  thing  to  be  considered  as  indicating  the  favor  of 
God  which  attended  the  church  under  the  Presidency  of  the 
Twelve  Apostles,  is  the  .fact  that  the  church  was  held  together 
through  that  trying  period  immediately  following  the  martyr- 
dom of  the  prophets  Joseph  and  Hyrum. 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  87 

If  this  were  true  it  would  not  be  sufficient  proof  of  God's 
approval,  as  many  corrupt  organizations  are  held  together 
under  trying  circumstances.  But  let  us  inquire  how  much 
truth  there  is  in  the  assertion  that  the  church  was  held 
together.  We  do  not  know  just  how  many  held  to  that 
organization,  but  they  cannot  claim  more  than  their  - 
Church  Historian  and  Recorder,  Mr.  Richards',  estimate 
of  the  entire  number  of  the  church  at  the  time,  less  the 
thousands  who  followed  Rigdon,  Strang,  William  Smith, 
and  others.  He  says: — 

The  nearest  we  can  approximate  the  number  was  about 
26,000  to  27,000  souls. 

(See  his  letter,  p.  59.) 

In  making  his  estimate  Mr.  Richards  would  add  to  the 
number  they  had  with  them  a  fair  estimate  for  those  who 
followed  other  leaders;  so  their  number  must  have  been 
several  thousand  less  than  the  above  figures.  To  be 
exceedingly  liberal  we  will  say  they  had  twenty  thousand. 
What  proportion  was  that  of  the  whole?  Joseph  Smith's 
estimate  in  1844  was  150,000.  (See  answer  to  Richards, 
p.  60.) 

Wilford  Woodruff,  in  April,  1845,  reported  the  number 
of  saints  in  America  alone  to  be  above  one  hundred  thousand. 
This  estimate  would  not  be  far  from  Joseph  Smith's,  who 
included  the  whole  church.  The  following  is  the  report  of 
Mr.  Woodruff:— 

Elder  Wilford  Woodruff  then  rose  to  represent  his  confer- 
ence, to  which  he  had  pledged  himself  at  an  early  part  of  the 
day.  He  said  that  he  represented  about  twenty-eight  states  of 
the  American  Union,  above  one  hundred  thousand  saints,  a 
quorum  of  twelve  apostles,  the  various  quorums  in  the  stakes 
of  Zion,  fifteo  quorums  of  the  seventies,  a  conference  with  two 
temples  of  the  Lord,  one  long  ago  completed,  and  one  fast  has- 
tening to  its  completion. — Millennial  Star,  Vol.  5,  pp.  170,  171. 

So  they  held  together  about  two  fifteenths  of  the  entire 
church.  And  we  are  asked  to  accept  this  as  an  evidence 
of  God's  favorl 


88  TRUE  SUCCESSION   IN 

His  next  reason  for  adopting  his  conclusion  he  gives  in 
the  following: — 

Thus  trusted  by  the  saints  the  Twelve  went  on  building  upon 
the  foundation  laid  by  the  prophet  Joseph.  They  took  steps  to 
push  the  building  up  of  Nauvoo,  but  their  chief  interest  and 
their  most  strenuous  efforts  centered  in  completing  the  Temple 
and  Nauvoo  House. — Roberts,  p.  101. 

In  all  this  they  failed,  neither  building  Nauvoo,  nor  the 
Temple,  nor  the  Nauvoo  House  to  completion,  as  we  have 
shown.  Surely  this  is  not  an  evidence  of  God's  favor. 

After  making  the  assertion  regarding  the  temple,  which 
we  have  before  noticed,  Mr.  Roberts  continues: — 

This  accomplished,  and  mobocracy  again  raising  its  horrid 
front,  to  plague  the  church,  the  Twelve  turned  their  faces 
towards  the  west;  for  they  remembered  that  Joseph  himself  had 
prophesied  that  the  saints  would  yet  be  driven  to  the  Rocky 
Mountains,  and  there  become  a  mighty  people.  —  Roberts, 
p.  102. 

In  connection  with  this  he  explains  in  a  footnote  as  fol- 
lows:— 

Under  date  of  August  6th,  1842,  Joseph  writes  in  his  history: 
"I  prophesied  that  the  saints  would  continue  to  sutfer  much 
affliction,  and  would  be  driven  to  the  Rocky  Mountains,  many 
would  apostatize,  others  would  be  put  to  death  by  our  perse- 
cutors, or  lose  their  lives  in  consequence  of  exposure  or  disease, 
and  some  of  you  will  live  to  go  and  assist  in  making  settle- 
ments and  build  cities,  and  see  them  become  a  mighty  people 
in  the  midst  of  the  Rocky  Mountains." 

Mr.  Roberts  gives  us  no  citation  to  aid  us  in  finding  a 
record  of  this  purported  revelation.  For  years  they  have 
been  referring  to  such  a  prediction,  but  those  using  it 
either  did  not  know  or  would  not  tell  where  it  could  be 
found.  We  have  repeatedly  asked  that  they  produce  it, 
but  the  only  version  of  that  prophecy  that  we  have  seen  is 
found  in  the  Biography  of  Anson  Call  published  in  the 
"History  of  Northern  Utah  and  Southern  Idaho,"  Vol. 
2,  by  Tullidge.  It  is  a  little  lengthy,  but  as  so  much  has 
been  said  about  this  purported  prediction  we  quote  it  in 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  89 

full  as  given  by  Mr.  Call,  an  accredited  minister  of  the 
church  which  Mr.  Roberts  represents.  The  Historian 
says:— 

On  the  14th  of  July,  1843,  with  quite  a  number  of  his  breth 
ren,  he  crossed  the  Mississippi  River  to  the  town  of  Montrose, 
to  be  present  at  the  installment  of  the  masonic  lodge  of  the 
"Rising  Sun."  A  block  school  house  had  been  prepared  with 
shade  in  front,  under  which  was  a  barrel  of  ice  water.  Judge 
George  Adams  was  the  highest  masonic  authority  in  the  state 
of  Illinois  and  had  been  sent  there  to  organize  this  lodge.  He, 
Hyrum  Smith  and  J.  C.  Bennett,  being  high  Masons,  went  into 
the  house  to  perform  some  ceremonies  which  the  others  were 
not  entitled  to  witness.  These,  including  Joseph  Smith  re- 
mained under  the  bowery.  Joseph,  as  he  was  tasting  the  cold 
water,  warned  the  brethren  not  to  be  too  free  with  it.  With 
the  tumbler  still  in  his  hand  he  prophesied  that  the  Saints 
would  yet  go  to  the  Rocky  Mountains;  and,  said  he,  this  water 
tastes  much  like  that  of  the  crystal  streams  that  are  running 
from  the  snow  capped  mountains.  We  will  let  Mr.  Call 
describe  this  prophetic  scene:  "I  had  before  seen  him  in  a 
vision  and  now  saw  while  he  was  talking  his  countenance 
change  to  white;  not  the  deadly  white  of  a  bloodless  face,  but  a 
living  brilliant  white.  He  seemed  absorbed  in  gazing  at  some- 
thing at  a  great  distance  and  said  I  am  gazing  upon  the  valleys 
of  those  mountains."  This  was  followed  by  a  vivid  description 
of  the  scenery  of  these  mountains  as  I  have  since  become 
acquainted  with  it.  Pointing  to  Shadrach  Roundy  and  others, 
he  said,  "There  are  some  men  here  who  shall  do  a  great  work 
in  that  land."  Pointing  to  me  he  said,  "There  is  Anson,  he 
shall  go  and  shall  assist  in  building  cities  from  one  end  of  the 
country  to  the  other,  and  you,"  rather  extending  the  idea  to  all 
those  he  had  spoken  of,  "shall  perform  as  great  a  work  as  has 
been  done  by  man,  so  that  the  nations  of  the  earth  shall  be 
astonished  and  many  of  them  will  be  gathered  in  that  land  and 
assist  in  building  cities  and  temples,  and  Israel  shall  be  made 
to  rejoice." 

"It  is  impossible  to  represent  in  words  this  scene  which  is 
still  vivid  in  my  mind,  of  the  grandeur  of  Joseph's  appearance, 
his  beautiful 'descriptions  of  this  land,  and  his  wonderful  pro- 
phetic utterances  as  they  emanated  from  the  glorious  inspira- 
tions that  overshadowed  him.  There  was  a  force  and  power 
in  his  exclamations  of  which  the  following  is  but  a  faint  echo. 
'Oh  the  beauty  of  those  snow  capped  mountains.  The  cool 
refreshing  streams  that  are  running  down  through  those  moun- 
tain gorges."  Then  gazing  in  another  direction,  as  if  there 
was  a  change  and  locality:  "Oh  the  scenes  that  this  people 


00  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

will  pass  through!  The  dead  that  will  lay  between  here  and 
there."  Then,  turning  in  another  direction  as  if  the  scene 
had  again  changed;  "Oh  the  apostasy  that  will  take  place 
before  my  brethren  reach  that  land!"  But  he  continued,  "The 
priesthood  shall  prevail  over  all  its  enemies,  triumph  over  the 
devil  and  be  established  upon  the  earth  never  more  to  be 
thrown  down."  He  then  charged  us  with  great  force  and 
power,  to  be  faithful  in  those  things  that  had  been  and  should 
be  committed  to  our  charge,  with  the  promise  of  all  the  bless- 
ings that  the  priesthood  could  bestow.  "Remember  these 
things  and  treasure  them  up,  Amen." — Biographical  Supple- 
ment, pp.  271,  272. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  date  given  by  Mr.  Roberts 
and  that  given  in  this  sketch  do  not  agree,  but  evidently 
the  same  prediction  is  referred  to.  There  is  not  a  material 
point  in  this  prediction  that  conflicts  with  our  position. 
We  concede  that  they  went  to  the  Rocky  Mountains  and 
did  a  great  work  in  that  land;  that  Mr.  Roundy  and  Mr. 
Call  assisted  in  that  work;  that  the  nations  of  the  earth 
were  astonished,  and  from  the  nations  of  the  earth  men 
gathered  there  to  assist;  and  we  have  urged  and  do  urge 
that  there  was  a  great  apostasy  before  they  reached  that 
land.  We  believe  that  the  priesthood  will  prevail  over  its 
enemies  and  triumph  over  the  Devil;  and  that  Joseph's 
exhortation  to  be  faithful  was  timely  and  appropriate. 
The  fulfillment  of  this  prediction,  if  prediction  it  was,  is 
to  the  credit  of  the  Prophet,  but  no  credit  attaches  to 
those  who  fulfilled  the  prophecy;  for  there  is  not  a  word  in 
it  to  indicate  that  God  had  any  more  to  do  with  their  going 
to  the  Rocky  Mountains,  or  with  the  work  they  did  there, 
than  he  had  with  the  apostasy  that  took  place  before  they 
reached  there. 

Further,  whether  Joseph  Smith  predicted  that  they 
would  go  or  not,  it  is  evident  that  he  did  not  approve  of 
their  going,  or  at  least  had  not  appointed  that  the  church 
should  locate  in  the  West,  for  on  June  23,  1844,  four  days 
before  his  death  he  wrote  his  wife: — 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  91 

I  do  not  know  where  I  shall  go  or  what  I  shall  do,  but  shall  if 
possible  endeavor  to  get  to  the  city  of  Washington. — Church 
History,  Vol.  2,  p.  770. 

According  to  the  purported  revelation  through  Parley 
P.  Pratt,  God's  instruction  was  for  them  not  to  fly  to  the 
wilderness  and* desert,  but  to  stay  in  Nauvoo.  (See  p.  75.) 
Evidence  can  be  produced  in  abundance  that  it  was  the 
intention  of  the  leaders  after  the  death  of  Joseph  to  remain 
and  build  up  Nauvoo;  but  one  statement  from  Elder 
Parley  P.  Pratt  will  be  sufficient  for  the  purpose  of  this 
work.  In  an  epistle  addressed  "To  the  Saints  in  the 
Eastern  States, ' '  and  dated  July  20,  1846,  over  two  years 
after  the  death  of  the  Prophet,  Elder  Pratt  writes: — 

Yes,  my  friends,  think  it  not  strange,  if  before  ten  years  roll 
round,  Nauvoo  is  the  largest  and  most  wealthy  city  in  America, 
diffusing  wealth,  comfort,  peace  and  knowledge  through  all 
parts  of  the  West,  and  more  or  less  to  the  whole  world. 

Think  it  not  strange  if  a  million  of  industrious  Saints  are 
congregated  in  that  and  the  neighbouring  cities,  all  acting  in 
union,  with  one  heart  and  mind,  while  every  market  in  the 
world  is  supplied  more  or  less  with  the  productions  of  their 
skill  and  industry. 

Think  it  not  strange  if  kings,  princes,  nobles  and  great  men 
come  there  with  their  rich  presents  in  the  name  of  the  Lord, 
and  to  his  sanctuary  to  seek  knowledge,  and  to  receive  endow- 
ment and  salvation,  for  themselves  and  their  dead. — Millennial 
Star,  Vol.  6,  p.  92. 

Had  it  been  decreed  before  Joseph's  death  that  the  body 
of  the  church  should  be  removed  to  a  location  in  the  Rocky 
Mountains,  would  Mr.  Pratt  have  written  thus,  more  than 
two  years  afterward? 

Certainly  not.  Then  we  cannot  accept  the  fact  of  their 
being  "driven  to  the  Rocky  Mountains,"  even  though 
Joseph  predicted  it,  as  an  evidence  of  God's  approval. 
They  had  been  warned  through  the  Prophet  that  if  they 
did  not  build  the  temple  in  due  time  they  might  share  the 
same  fate  that  had  befallen  them  in  Missouri  (see  p.  72); 
and  now  when  the  truth  of  that  warning  has  been  realized 


92  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

we  are  asked  to  accept  it  as  an  evidence  of  God's  approval. 
Strange  philosophy! 

In  support  of  his  interpretation  of  the  above  prophecy 
Mr.  Roberts  introduces  the  following: — 

Isaiah,  too,  long  centuries  before  this  time,  had  declared  that 
it  should  come  to  pass 

In  the  last  days,  that  the  mountain  of  the  Lord's  house  shall 
be  established  in  the  top  of  the  mountains,  and  shall  be  exalted 
above  the  hills;  and  all  nations  shall  flow  unto  it. — Roberts,  p. 
102. 

Mr.  Roberts  is  careful  not  to  comment  much  upon  this 
passage;  but  to  make  it  apply  as  his  context  indicates  he 
must  give  it  a  strained  interpretation.  He  must  make  the 
word  "mountain"  to  mean  the  church  or  kingdom  of  God; 
but  its  plural  "mountains"  to  mean  literal  elevations  of  the 
earth's  surface.  If  the  word  "mountain"  means  kingdom 
then  the  word  "mountains"  means  kingdoms,  and  the  plain, 
simple,  and  we  believe  correct  rendering  of  the  passage 
would  be  that  God  would  establish  his  kingdom  among  the 
kingdoms  of  the  world. 

But  if  Mr.  Roberts  insists  on  interpreting  the  word 
"mountains"  in  the  passage  to  mean  literal  mountains,  to 
be  consistent  he  should  interpret  "mountain"  to  be  literal 
'  and  have  God  raising  a  mountain  of  earth  and  stone  upon 
the  top  of  the  Rocky  Mountains.  Perhaps  we  can  assist 
Mr.  Roberts  a  little  here.  We  suggest  that  a  more  con- 
sistent interpretation  than  his  would  be  to  apply  the  word 
"mountain"  to  those  piles  of  rock  which  the  Mormons 
erected  on  the  Rocky  Mountains  to  push  down  on  the 
United  States  army  as  it  passed. 

But,  seriously,  this  passage  does  not  in  its  main  features 
apply  to  the  American  Continent.  The  verse  preceding 
the  one  which  Mr.  Roberts  quotes  reads: — 

The  word  that  Isaiah  the  son  of  Amoz  saw  concerning  Judah 
and  Jerusalem. — Isaiah  2: 1. 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  93 

Well  may  Mr.  Roberts  exclaim  in  the  language  of  Bishop 
Warburton, 

Orthodoxy,  my  lord,  is  my  doxy;  and  heterodoxy  is  some 
other  man's  doxy! — Roberts,  p.  75. 

Mr.  Roberts  next  with  great  nourish  points  out  how 
that  people  were  led  in  the  face  of  difficulties  across  the 
plains  to  the  Rocky  Mountains;  the  forming  of  colonies  in 
Utah,  Idaho,  Arizona,  Wyoming,  and  Colorado;  the  estab- 
lishing of  stakes  of  Zion;  relief  societies;  improvement 
associations;  Sunday  schools;  etc. 

Though  he  has  doubtless  overdrawn  the  picture  and 
painted  its  leading  features  in  more  brilliant  hues  than  the 
facts  would  justify,  we  will  not  follow  him,  for  all  this  is 
immaterial  in  establishing  his  claim  that  God's  favor  has 
followed  that  people,  unless  it  is  shown  that  the  works 
cited  were  performed  either  by  the  direction  or  the 
approval  of  God. 

Mr.  Roberts  next  comes  forward  with  the  following: — 

Among  the  first  acts  of  the  Twelve  after  the  martyrdom  of 
Joseph  and  Hyrum  was  one  to  greatly  increase  the  numbers  of 
the  seventies — the  quorums  of  the  priesthood  which  more  espe- 
cially constitute  the  foreign  ministry  of  the  church.  At  the 
October  conference  in  1844  the  quorums  of  seventies  were 
increased  from  two  to  ten.  Since  that  time  the  seventies  have 
been  increased,  until  now  they  number  one  hundred  and  seven 
quorums,  comprising  a  body  of  seven  thousand  men,  whose 
special  calling  it  is  to  preach  the  gospel  abroad.  Josephites 
complain  against  the  church  for  thus  increasing  the  number  of 
quorums  of  seventy;  and  mark  it  down  as  a  violation  of  the 
order  of  the  church,  and  quote  as  proof  the  following  from  the 
Doctrine  and  Covenants: 

And  these  seven  presidents  are  to  choose  other  seventies, 
besides  the  first  seventy,  to  whom  they  belong,  and  are  to  pre- 
side over  them;  and  also  other  seventy,  until  seven  times 
seventy,  if  the  labor  in  the  vineyard  of  necessity  requires  it. 

This  they  say  limits  the  number  of  quorums  to  seven,  and 
therefore  no  more  than  seven  ought  to  be  chosen.  The  prophet 
Joseph,  however,  when  the  first  quorums  of  seventy  were  being 
organized  said: 

If  the  first  Seventy  are  all  employed,  and  there  is  a  call  for 
more  laborers,  it  will  be  the  duty  of  the  seven  Presidents  of  the 


94  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

first  Seventy  to  call  and  ordain  other  seventy  and  send  them 
forth  to  labor  in  the  vineyard,  until  if  needs  be,  they  set  apart 
seven  times  seventy,  and  even  until  there  are  one  hundred  and 
forty  and  four  thousand  thus  set  apart  for  the  ministry. — Rob- 
erts, pp.  105,  106. 

Yes,  the  Twelve  did  at  that  time  increase  the  number  of 
seventies,  not  only  to  ten,  but  to  eleven  full  quorums,  and 
about  forty  of  the  twelfth  quorum.  (See  Times  and  Sea- 
sons, Vol.  5,  p.  696.)  And  truly  it  was  the  Twelve  that  did 
it.  The  law  providing  that  the  Seven  Presidents  of  Sev- 
enty should  choose  was  ignored,  as  the  following  extracts 
from  the  minutes  of  the  conference  will  show: — 

Elder  G.  A.  Smith  moved  that  all  in  the  elders'  quorum 
under  the  age  of  thirty-five  should  be  ordained  into  the  seven- 
ties, if  they  are  in  good  standing,  and  worthy,  and  will  accept 
it.  The  motion  was  seconded  and  carried  unanimously. — Times 
and  Seasons,  Vol.  5,  p.  695. 

He  [Brigham  Young]  also  selected  a  number  more  to  go  into 
the  seventies,  after  which  the  remainder  of  the  morning  was 
spent  in  calling  out  the  several  quorums  of  seventies,  and  giv- 
ing charges  to  the  several  presidents. — Times  and  Seasons,  Vol. 
5,  p.  696. 

This  indiscriminate  ordaining  of  men  without  regard  to 
the  law  or  a  calling  from  God  is  one  of  the  things  we  com- 
plain of. 

One  thing  is  certain;  there  is  no  provision  in  the  law 
for  more  than  seven  quorums  of  seventy.  If  Joseph  Smith 
did  say  what  Mr.  Roberts  quotes  him  as  saying,  his 
unsupported  word  is  not  law;  especially  when  he  is  out  of 
harmony  with  the  law.  Again,  there  have  been  so  many 
things  written  into  his  history  since  his  death  that  we  are 
slow  to  believe  him  guilty  of  writing  that  not  warranted 
in  the  law,  until  we  have  more  proof  than  can  be  found  in 
doubtful  publications. 

Mr.  Roberts  quotes  this  purported  statement  of  Joseph 
Smith  from  the  Millennial  Star,  volume  15,  which  was 
published  in  1853.  This  is  especially  suspicious  when  we 
consider  that  nine  years  before  its  publication  they  had 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  05 

transcended  the  bounds  of  the  law  in  an  irregular  and 
indiscriminate  way;  and  something  of  this  kind  was 
needed  to  bolster  up  their  past  acts. 

Then,  while  we  do  not  accept  Joseph  Smith's  word  in 
preference  to  the  law,  we  refuse,  upon  such  testimony,  to 
place  the  responsibility  of  this  departure  at  his  door. 

Mr.  Roberts  proceeds  to  enumerate  the  countries  where 
they  have  done  missionary  work  and  the  periodicals  and 
books  they  have  published,  all  of  which  could  have  been 
done  without  God's  approval,  hence  it  is  irrelevant. 

After  an  introduction  on  the  necessity  for  and  the  great 
benefit  of  the  doctrine  of  baptism  for  the  dead,  Mr.  Roberts 
gives  us  a  tabulated  statement  of  the  number  receiving 
this  ordinance  in  the  temples  of  St. -George,  Logan,  Manti, 
and  Salt  Lake,  as  an  evidence  of  the  great  work  done  by 
the  people  of  Utah;  but  in  addition  to  this  he  gives  a 
statement  of  the  number  of  '  'Ordinations  to  the  priesthood 
for  the  dead;"  "Endowments  for  the  dead;"  "Sealings 
(husbands  and  wives)  for  the  dead;"  "Sealings  (children  to 
parents)  for  the  dead;"  none  of  which  is  contemplated  in 
the  law  of  God;  nor  does  Mr.  Roberts  attempt  to  show  any 
justification  for  these  additions. 

Baptism  for  the  dead  is  only  legal  and  acceptable  when 
performed  either  in  Zion,  or  her  stakes,  or  in  Jerusalem, 
and  in  a  house  dedicated  to  and  accepted  by  God,  as  the 
following  will  show: — 

For,  verily  I  say  unto  you,  that  after  you  have  had  sufficient 
time  to  build  a  house  to  me,  wherein  the  ordinance  of  baptiz- 
ing for  the  dead  belongeth,  and  for  which  the  same  was  insti- 
tuted from  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  your  baptisms 
for  your  dead  cannot  be  acceptable  unto  me;  for  therein  are  the 
keys  of  the  holy  priesthood  ordained,  that  you  may  receive 
honor  and  glory.  And  after  this  time,  your  baptisms  for  the 
dead,  by  those  who  are  scattered  abroad,  are  not  acceptable 
unto  me,  saith  the  Lord;  for  it  is  ordained  that  in  Zion,  and  in 
her  stakes,  and  in  Jerusalem,  those  places  which  I  have 
appointed  for  refuge,  shall  be  the  places  for  your  baptisms  for 
your  dead. 


96  TRUE   SUCCESSION  IN 

And  again,  verily  I  say  unto  you,  How  shall  your  washings  be 
acceptable  unto  me,  except  ye  perform  them  in  a  house  which 
you  have  built  to  my  name?  For,  for  this  cause  I  commanded 
Moses  that  he  should  build  a  tabernacle,  that  they  should  bear 
it  with  them  in  the  wilderness,  and  to  build  a  house  in  the  land 
of  promise,  that  those  ordinances  might  be  revealed  which  had 
been  hid  from  before  the  world  was;  therefore,  verily  I  say 
unto  you,  that  your  anointings,  and  your  washings,  and  your 
baptisms  for  the  dead,  and  your  solemn  assemblies,  and  your 
memorials  for  your  sacrifices,  by  the  sons  of  Levi,  and  for 
3'our  oracles  in  your  most  holy  places,  wherein  you  receive  con- 
versations, and  your  statutes  and  judgments,  for  the  beginning 
of  the  revelations  and  foundation  of  Zion,  and  for  the  glory, 
honor,  and  endowment  of  all  her  municipals,  are  ordained  by 
the  ordinance  of  my  holy  house,  which  my  people  are  always 
commanded  to  build  unto  my  holy  name. — Doc.  and  Cov.  107: 
11,  12. 

Therefore,  before  introducing  this  line  of  evidence  Mr. 
Roberts  should  have  laid  the  foundation  for  it  by  showing 
that  St.  George,  Logan,  Manti,  and  Salt  Lake  City  were  in 
Zion,  or  her  stakes,  or  in  Jerusalem.  This  he  has  made  no 
attempt  to  do,  and  we  might  leave  it  here,  as  it  has  not 
properly  come  before  us,  hence  is  not  entitled  to  consider- 
ation. However,  we  will  make  a  few  references  which  will 
aid  the  reader  in  getting  at  the  true  status  of  their  tem- 
ples and  temple  building,  of  which  they  boast  so  much. 

The  clause  in  the  above  quotation  concerning  the  house 
of  God  "which  my  people  are  always  commanded  to  build," 
is  interpreted  to  mean  a  standing  commandment,  always 
in  force,  to  build  a  house  unto  the  Lord.  Mr.  Penrose 
says  of  this: — 

That  was  a  commandment  which  the  Lord  says  is  always 
given  to  his  people. — Penrose,  p.  5. 

The  Lord  says  no  such  thing.  There  is  a  difference 
between  a  commandment  "always  given,"  and  the  words  of 
the  book  "always  commanded"  "Always  commanded," 
evidently  means  that  they  are  not  authorized  to  build 
without  a  command.  That  it  is  to  be  so  understood  is  evi- 
dent from  the  fact  that  in  each  case  a  separate  and  dis- 


CHtfRCH  PRESIDENCY.  97 

tinct  command  was  given  regarding  the  building  of  the 
temples  at  Kirtland,  Independence,  and  Nauvoo.  The 
circumstances  attendant  and  instruction  attending  the 
attempted  temple  building  at  Far  West  are  also  very  plain 
upon  this  point,  as  the  following  extracts  will  show: — 

The  same  day,  August  5th,  the  Presidency,  High  Council, 
and  all  the  authorities  of  the  Church  in  Missouri,  assembled  in 
council  at  Far  West,  and  unanimously  resolved  to  go  oh  mod- 
erately and  build  a  house  unto  the  name  of  the  Lord  in  Far 
West,  as  they  had  means,  and  appointed  Edward  Partridge 
treasurer,  to  receive  all  the  donations  and  subscriptions  for  the 
erection  of  the  House  of  the  Lord;  Isaac  Morley  to  be  his  sec- 
retary.— Millennial  Star,  Vol.  16,  p.  54. 

Here  was  an  attempt  to  build  a  temple  without  revela- 
tion. How  did  it  terminate?  Read  the  following: — 

Also  voted  unanimously,  that  it  is  the  opinion  of  this  council, 
that  there  is  sufficient  room  in  this  country,  for  the  churches 
to  continue  gathering  from  abroad;  also  that  the  building  of 
the  House  of  the  Lord  be  postponed,  till  the  Lord  shall  reveal 
it  to  be  his  will  to  be  commenced. — Millennial  Star ,  Vol.  16,  p.  89. 

Mr.  Andrew  Jenson,  a  voluminous  writer  of  the  Utah 
Church,  says  of  this: — 

When  Joseph  arrived  there  he  counseled  that  the  building  of 
that  house  should  be  postponed  until  the  Lord  should  reveal  it 
to  be  his  will  to  have  it  commenced. — Historical  Record,  Vol. 
7,  p.  434. 

In  the  above  we  see  the  counsel  of  Joseph  Smith  on 
temple  building,  which  plainly  controverts  the  erroneous 
idea  that  a  commandment  to  build  is  given  in  perpetuity, 
justifying  the  building  at  any  time  without  special  direc- 
tion. Compare  with  this  the  utterances  of  Brigham  Young 
on  February  14,  1853,  when  the  ground  was  consecrated 
for  the  temple  in  Salt  Lake  City: — 

Some  might  query  whether  a  revelation  had  been  given  to 
build  a  house  to  the  Lord,  but  he  is  a  wicked  and  slothful  serv- 
ant who  doeth  nothing  but  what  his  Lord  commandeth,  when 
he  knoweth  his  master's  will.  I  know  a  Temple  is  needed,  and 
so  do  you;  and  when  we  know  a  thing,  why  do  we  need  a  reve- 
lation to  compel  us  to  do  that  thing?  If  the  Lord  and  all  the 


98  TRUE  SUCCESSION   IN 

people  want  a  revelation,   I    can    give  one    concerning    this 
Temple. 

In  a  few  days  I  shall  be  able  to  give  a  plan  of  the  Temple  on 
paper,  and  then  if  all  heaven,  or  any  good  man  on  the  earth 
will  suggest  any  improvements,  we  will  receive  and  adopt 
them.— Millennial  Star,  Vol.  15,  p.  391. 

Brigham  Young  not  only  proceeded  then  without  revela- 
tion, but  boastfully  and  blasphemously  notified  the  Lord 
that  if  he  wished  a  revelation  Brigham  could  give  one. 
Brigham  was  first  to  give  his  plan,  and  then  if  heaven  or 
any  good  man  would  suggest  any  improvements  they  were 
to  be  adopted.  And  we  are  asked  to  accept  such  work  as 
an  evidence  of  the  "favor  and  blessing  of  God"  upon  a  peo- 
ple, and  to  believe  that  the  house  builded  under  such  cir- 
cumstances is  the  temple  of  the  Most  High. 

Nor  are  we  given  any  assurance  that  the  edifices  called 
temples  at  St.  George,  Manti,  and  Logan  are  built  by  any 
better  authority. 

To-day  the  title  to  the  Kirtland  Temple,  the  only  one 
now  standing  in  the  world  which  was  built  by  the  com- 
mand of  God,  is  in  the  Reorganization,  and  we  hold  our- 
selves in  readiness  to  build,  or  assist  to  build,  any  other 
house  when  directed  to  do  so  by  the  command  of  God;  but 
our  souls  revolt  at  the  thought  of  accepting  as  God's  house 
a  building  the  plan  of  which  was  devised  by  Brigham 
Young  and  announced  to  the  church  in  such  boastful  and 
disrespectful  language.  We  can  scarcely  conceal  our  in- 
dignation at  the  impudence  that  asks  us  to  accept  works 
done  in  such  places  as  evidence  of  the  "favor  and  blessing 
of  God." 

Mr.  Roberts  next  seeks  to  make  a  point  by  claiming  that 
the  people  of  God  were  to  be  persecuted,  and  quoting 
passages  of  scripture  to  that  effect,  and  then  adding: — 

Since  the  death  of  the  prophet  Joseph,  the  same  Powers 
which  pursued  him  and  the  work  he  established  have  contin- 
ued their  hostilities  against  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Lat- 
ter-day Saints.  It  is  the  elders  of  that  church,  not  the  elders  of 


CfctfROEf 

the  Reorganized  church,  who  have  been  hunted  by  mobs,  and 
beaten  for  no  other  crime  than  calling  men  to  repentance.  It 
is  the  blood  of  the  elders  of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Lat- 
ter-day Saints,  not  of  the  "Reorganized  church,"  which  today 
unavenged  crimsons  the  soil  of  the  states  of  Georgia,  Tennessee 
and  Mississippi. 

It  is  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter-day  Saints,  not  the 
"Reorganized  church"  which  has  been  constantly  assailed, 
despoiled  of  its  property,  its  members  driven  into  exile,  hun- 
dreds thrust  into  prison,  whole  communities  terrorized — and  all 
this  through  the  administrators  of  the  government  acting 
under  a  mistaken  zeal  created  by  the  persistent  misrepresenta- 
tions of  sectarian  priests  and  religious  bigots — some  of  our 
"friends"  of  high  standing  in  the  "Reorganization"  joining  in 
the  hue  and  cry  against  the  saints  of  God  and  aiding  in  the 
work  of  misrepresentation. — Roberts,  p.  111. 

This  is  partly  true  and  partly  untrue.  More  than  once 
has  the  writer  of  these  lines  faced  lawless  mobs;  several  of 
his  brethren  have  done  the  same.  We  "have  been  hunted 
by  mobs,  and  beaten  for  no  other  crime  than  calling  men 
to  repentance."  But,  thank  God,  the  opposition  we  have 
met,  like  that  which  was  encountered  by  our  fathers  in  the 
days  of  the  martyr  Joseph,  has  been  lawless  opposition. 
We  have  not  been  convicted  of  crime  by  courts  of  justice; 
nor  are  the  leading  offices  of  the  Reorganization  filled  by 
ex-convicts  from  the  penitentiary.  If  there  is  any  glory  in 
a  criminal  record,  Mr.  Roberts  and  his  associates  are  wel- 
come to  it;  but  we  prefer  the  sentiment  of  the  apostle 
Peter:— 

For  it  is  better,  if  the  will  of  God  be  so,  that  ye  suffer  for 
well  doing,  than  for  evil  doing.— 1  Peter  3:  17. 

That  since  the  early  days  of  persecution  we  have  gained 
some  favor  where  we  are  best  known,  is  true;  but  we  have 
done  so  in  harmony  with  and  in  fulfillment  of  the  following 
promise  of  the  Lord  given  in  1834: — 

And  let  all  my  people  who  dwell  in  the  regions  round  about, 
be  very  faithful,  and  prayerful,  and  humble  before  me,  and 
reveal  not  the  things  which  I  have  revealed  unto  them,  until  it 
is  wisdom  in  me  that  they  should  be  revealed.  Talk  not  judg- 
ment, neither  boast  of  faith,  nor  of  mighty  works;  but  carefully 


100  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

gather  together,  as  much  in  one  region  as  can  be  consistently 
with  the  feelings  of  the  people:  and,  behold,  I  will  give  unto 
you  favor  and  grace  in  their  eyes,  that  you  may  rest  in  peace 
and  safety,  while  you  are  saying  unto  the  people,  Execute  judg- 
ment and  justice  for  us  according  to  law,  and  redress  us  of  our 
wrongs.— D.  C.  102:  7. 

The  Reorganization  has  by  action  of  the  body,  as  well  as 
through  its  committees  and  representatives,  favored 
wholesome  legislation  against  the  crimes  of  polygamy  and 
unlawful  cohabitation;  but  we  challenge  the  proof  that  we 
have  aided  "in  the  work  of  misrepresentation." 

Having  now  followed  Mr.  Roberts  to  the  close  of  his 
attack,  and  considered  every  material  point,  we  submit 
our  answer  to  the  careful  consideration  of  the  reader,  and 
pay  our  respects  to  Mr.  Penrose,  after  which  we  will  treat 
the  subject  from  a  more  direct  standpoint. 


CHAPTER  10. 

PENROSE — LEADING   SPIRITS— WOODRUFF'S    TESTIMONY — DISCI- 
PLINE—SPENCER INTERVIEW. 

Now  COMES  Mr.  Charles  W.  Penrose  with  his  "Priest- 
hood and  Presidency;"  but  our  reply  to  him  will  be  brief, 
as  in  replying  to  Mr.  Roberts,  and  in  incidental  mention  of 
Mr.  Penrose's  work,  we  have  considered  the  most  of  his 
material  points. 

Mr.  Penrose,  like  Mr.  Roberts,  whom  he  apes,  generally 
contents  himself  in  assertions  for  which  he  offers  no  proof. 
We  have  in  these  pages  so  frequently  called  attention  to 
this  method  that  it  is  only  necessary  here  to  ask  the  reader 
to  carefully  discriminate  between  that  which  is  asserted 
and  that  for  which  proof  is  offered.  We  shall  therefore 
not  reply  to  many  of  his  unsupported  assertions.  Here  is 
one,  however,  which  we  wish  to  notice.  Speaking  of  the 
Reorganization  he  says: — 

Its  leading  spirits  are  chiefly  persons  who  have  been  excom- 
municated from  the  Church  of  Christ  for  apostasy  and  other 
offenses. — Penrose,  p.  3. 

We  suppose  that  by  the  '  'Church  of  Christ"  Mr.  Penrose 
means  the  church  he  represents;  but,  like  Mr.  Roberts,  he 
assumes  without  proof  that  it  is  the  Church  of  Christ. 

If,  with  this  explanation,  his  assertion  is  true,  according 
to  Mr.  Roberts'  philosophy  (see  p.  34)  the  Reorganization 
is  a  stream  flowing  chiefly  from  the  church  in  Utah,  and 
partaking  of  its  nature  and  characteristics.  Of  what  then 
can  Mr.  Penrose  complain?  However,  his  assertion  is  not 
true.  Of  the  fifteen  composing  the  First  Presidency  and  the 
Quorum  of  Twelve  Apostles,  but  one  was  ever  connected 
with  the  church  in  Utah;  and  he  was  never  expelled  for 


102  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

any  criminal  offenses,  if  indeed  he  was  ever  expelled  at  all. 
Just  how  many  Mr.  Penrose  would  include  as  leading  spir- 
its, we  do  not  know;  but  an  examination  will  disclose,  we 
think,  about  the  same  proportion;  viz.,  that  no  more  than 
one  in  fifteen,  in  the  other  quorums,  have  communed  with 
the  church  Mr.  Penrose  represents.  We  challenge  the 
proof  that  any  of  these  few  were  ever  legally  expelled  or 
ever  regularly  charged  with  criminal  conduct;  or  that  any 
action  was  ever  taken  against  them  by  this  so-called 
Church  of  Christ  prior  to  their  having  united  with  the 
Reorganization. 

Mr.  Roberts  has  us  all  Strangites  and  William  Smith- 
ites,  and  Mr.  Penrose  has  us  all  Brighamites;  and  yet  they 
have  the  audacity  to  say  that  we  are  not  persecuted! 

The  testimony  of  Mr.  Woodruff,  as  quoted  by  Mr.  Pen- 
rose,  on  page  23  of  his  pamphlet,  is  faulty,  and  would  not 
be  accepted  in  a  court  of  justice.  He  says: — 

Joseph  Smith  never  ordained  his  son  Joseph,  never  blessed 
him  nor  set  him  apart  to  lead  this  church  and  kingdom  on  the 
face  of  the  earth.  When  he  or  any  other  man  says  he  did,  they 
state  that  which  is  false  before  high  heaven. 

Mr.  Woodruff  could  not  possibly  know  what  he  here 
affirms.  To  suppose  that  he  did  is  to  suppose  that  he  was 
constantly  with  Joseph  Smith,  and  especially  so  at  the 
times  and  places  where  it  is  claimed  that  the  blessing  was 
pronounced.  At  the  time  Joseph  Smith  was  in  Liberty 
Jail  Mr.  Woodruff  was  not  there,  nor  was  he  in  the  State 
of  Missouri  at  all  during  the  perilous  times  of  1837  and 
1838,  according  to  Brighamite  publications.  Further,  he 
was  not  always  present  in  Nauvoo,  and  hence  could  not 
know  whereof  he  affirms.  We  feel  a  profound  sympathy 
for  Mr.  Woodruff,  and  we  are  sorry  that  Mr.  Penrose  has 
had  so  little  respect  for  this  old  man  in  his  dotage  as  to 
drag  him  before  the  public  by  quoting  his  childish  utter- 
ances. 


OHUROH  PRESIDENCY.  103 

Mr.  Penrose  says: — 

In  the  true  church  there  are  order  and  discipline  under  com- 
petent authority;  in  the  "Josephite"  society  there  are  disorder, 
confusion  and  continual  contention,  which  Christ  says  is  of  the 
devil  (III  Nephi  xi:  29).— Penrose,  p.  29. 

In  this  connection  allow  us  to  produce  two  statements 
from  leading  men  in  the  Utah  Church,  and  we  could  pro- 
duce much  more  of  the  same  sort. 

Here  is  what  B.  H.  Roberts  says  of  Governor  Wells: — 

"When  the  sow  that  has  been  washed  returns  to  her  wallow- 
ing in  the  mire,  we  smile  at  it. 

"When  the  dog  turns  to  his  vomit,  we  sicken  at  it. 

"When  the  bird  fouls  its  own  nest,  we  are  filled  with  disgust. 

"But  when  a  man — and  that  man  a  Governor  of  a  State— dis- 
credits the  marriage  system  which  gave  him  birth,  stamps  the 
brand  of  dishonor  on  his  own  parents,  and  assumes  an  attitude 
that  carried  to  its  legitimate  conclusions,  would  put  his  own 
sisters  beyond  the  pale  of  the  law  and  mark  them  as  outcasts, 
then  there  is  no  comparison  that  can  express  one's  contempt 
and  disgust  for  such  a  craven. 

"I  knew  Gov.  Wells's  father.  An  honorable  man  he  was,  pos- 
sessed of  broad  views  and  statesmanlike  qualities.  When  I 
think  of  this  noble  character,  I  can  only  wonder  that  he  begot 
so  unworthy  and  craven  a  son." — 8aU  Lake  Semi- Weekly  Tribune. 
Nov.  8,  1898. 

And  here  is  Wells  on  Roberts: — 

Aside  from  the  trouble  his  election  would  create,  a  man 
whose  character  is  marked  by  every  act  that  may  define  a 
demagogue  and  who  seems  to  be  in  constant  need  of  a  guardian 
to  keep  him  in  his  party  and  in  his  church,  is  scarcely  worthy 
the  suffrage  of  his  people. — Ibid. 

Until  Mr.  Penrose  can  point  to  something  among  us 
approximating  to  this,  he  should  cease  to  draw  compari- 
sons and  to  boast  of  pacific  conditions.  The  above  are 
only  fair  specimens  of  many  of  the  kind  that  have  attended 
their  career  from  1844  until  the  present. 

As  all  material  points  in  the  body  of  Mr.  Penrose's  work 
are  answered  in  the  foregoing  pages,  we  leave  it;  but  we 
wish  to  give  brief  notice  to  his  appendix,  which  purports 
to  contain  an  account  of  an  interview  that  S.  Q-.  Spencer  et 


104  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

al.  had  with  President  Joseph  Smith  at  Independence,  Mis- 
souri, March  18,  1896.  On  page  33  Mr.  Penrose  makes  Mr. 
Spencer  to  say: — 

All  the  foregoing  questions  were  formulated  and  written, 
with  space  left  for  answers,  before  we  called  on  Joseph  Smith; 
and  the  answers,  although  in  one  or  two  instances  necessarily 
abbreviated  (when  they  were  long,  and  insufficient  space  had 
been  left),  are  word  for  word  as  answered,  finally,  by  him. 

On  page  35  he  makes  Spencer  et  al.  to  say: — 

We  declare  in  words  of  soberness,  knowing  full  well  that  no 
"liar"  shall  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God,  that  the  answers  are 
complete  to  the  questions  asked  in  said  interview,  entirely  free 
from  any  misleading  feature. 

There  is  something  wrong  here.     These  answers  cannot 
be  both  ''abbreviated"  and  "complete." 
In  Mr.  Penrose's  closing  remarks  he  says: — 

The  unbiased  reader  will  perceive  that  Mr.  Smith  does  not 
make  any  specific  denial  or  refutation  of  the  statements  fur- 
nished to  the  News  by  the  four  Elders  who  conversed  with  him. 
— Penrose,  p.  36. 

Had  Mr.  Penrose  given  President  Smith's  version  of 
that  interview,  the  unbiased  reader  would  see  quite  differ- 
ently. We  here  give  his  statement  that  the  "unbiased" 
reader  may  compare: — 

STATEMENT  OF  INTERVIEW. 

"LAMONI,  Iowa,  May  19,  1896. 
"BRO.  J.  M.  STUBBART, 

"Octavia,  Nebraska. 

"Yours  of  15th  received.  In  reply,  Messrs.  S.  G.  Spencer,  E. 
S.  Hart,  A.  G.  Young,  and  W.  E.  Criddle,  were  at  Bro.  Joseph 
Luff's  house,  and  Mr.  Spencer  did  the  talking.  He  asked  me 
several  questions;  the  form  of  which  I  do  not  remember.  If  he 
had  them  written,  I  did  not  see  them;  but  he  certainly  has  not 
given  the  answers  as  I  gave  them.  He  had  asked  me  for  an 
interview,  and  I  granted  it.  He  brought  the  others  with  him 
at  his  own  motion,  and  without  consulting  me.  I  had  no 
thought  he  would  misrepresent  me.  If  he  had  the  questions 
numbered  and  set  down,  I  did  not  see  them;  nor  were  his  min- 
utes of  what  I  said  submitted  tome  for  correction.  I  hoped 
that  neither  he,  nor  either  of  them,  would  go  away  and  lie 
about  me. 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  105 

"1.  Do  you  claim  to  be  a  prophet  of  God? 

"Ans. — I  claim  to  occupy  the  position  and  office  my  father 
did. 

"2.  Did  your  father  ordain  you  to  be  a  prophet  to  lead  the 
church? 

"A. — Not  in  the  sense  of  installing  me  in  the  leadership,  for 
he  was  living  and  occupying.  But  in  the  sense  of  conferring 
on  me  by  his  blessing  and  the  laying  on  of  his  hands  whatever 
appertained  to  me  as  his  son  and  his  successor,  he  did,  using 
the  word  'ordain'  to  mean  blessing,  conferring  and  confirming 
upon  me  whatever  he  held  that  could  descend  to  me  as  his  son 
by  right  of  lineage.  He  did  this  in  Liberty  Jail,  in  Missouri; 
and  again  at  Nauvoo,  some  time  before  his  death,  after  I  was 
baptized,  in  the  Brick  Store  and  in  the  presence  of  witnesses, 
of  whom  James  Whitehead,  now  of  Lamoni,  was  one.  Whether 
he  used  the  word  'ordain'  I  do  not  know.  He  again  laid  hands 
upon  me  and  blessed  me  to  the  same  blessing,  just  before  he 
left  Nauvoo  for  Carthage,  in  the  north  room  of  the  Mansion,  at 
which  time  a  number  were  present.  Whether  this  may  be 
considered  an  ordination  or  not;  it  was  a  setting  apart  by  bless- 
ing; and  I  have  so  considered  it. 

"3.  You  say  a  voice  told  you  to  join  the  Reorganized  Church. 
Is  it  not  possible  that  the  voice  was  from  a  seducing  spirit — a 
transformed  devil— instead  of  from  broa? 

"To  this  question,  though  I  believe  the  latter  part  respecting 
a  transformed  devil  has  been  added  since,  I  replied  in  sub- 
stance:— 

"  'That  is  not  a  fair  question,  Elder  Spencer,  and  is  asked 
with  a  view  to  make  capital  out  of  a  possible  answer.  I  went 
to  God,  earnestly  asking  for  direction,  as  my  father  did.  The 
conditions  were  similar;  and  I  believed  that  if  there  was  a  man 
on  earth  who  had  the  right  to  believe  that  God  would  deal 
fairly  with  him,  I  was  that  man.  I  believe  that  now.  I  asked 
in  sincerity,  "Where  shall  I  go?"  And  I  was  told  as  plainly  as 
I  can  hear  you  speak  to-day,  to  "join  the  Reorganized  Church." 
I  am  not  prepared  to  admit,  in  any  sense,  that  I  was  deceived; 
or  that  the  voice  was  that  of  a  seducing  or  evil  spirit.  I  am 
not  prepared  to  say  or  to  believe  that  God  would  either  deceive 
me  or  suffer  any  evil  or  lying  spirit  to  deceive  me.  To  admit 
that  would  be  to  throw  doubt  on  every  manifestation  said  to 
have  been  received  during  the  rise  of  the  church.  It  would 
subject  the  statements  of  Joseph  Smith,  David  Whitmer,  and 
others  who  said  they  saw  angels,  and  heard  them,  to  grave  dis- 
credit. No,  sir;  I  do  not  admit  that  there  was,  or  could  have 
been,  any  deception  or  deceiving  spirit  in  the  case.' 

"Mr.  Spencer  tried  in  several  ways  to  get  me  to  admit  that 
it  might  have  been  a  deception;  but  I  did  not  at  any  time  make 
such  admission.  He  has  given  in  two  lines  what  f  did  not  say: 


106  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

except  that  I  told  him  I  'heard  a  voice.'  That  much  is  true. 
I  would  not  and  did  not  say  that  it  could  be,  or  was  deceptive. 
I  fully  believed  it  to  be  true  and  from  God,  in  answer  to  my 
prayer. 

"He  asked  me  if  I  claimed  to  be  an  apostle,  and  I  told  him 
'Yes;'  that  as  my  father  and  O.  Cowdery  were  apostles,  after 
the  ordination  that  made  them  the  first  and  second  elders  of  the 
church  in  1830,  so  was  I  an  apostle. 

"4.  Who  ordained  you?  (The  word  'apostle'  was  not  used  in 
this  question  at  that  time.) 

"A. — William  Marks,  who  was  president  of  the  High  Council 
at  Nauvoo,  and  president  of  the  stake  at  Father's  death;  Wil- 
liam Blair,  and  Zenas  H.  Gurley.  Elder  Gurley  was  a  seventy 
in  Father's  lifetime.  Elder  Blair  had  been  baptized  by  my 
Uncle  William,  who  was  one  of  the  Twelve  at  Father's  death; 
these  men  ordained  me  to  be  an  high  priest;  I  was  then  chosen 
to  be  president  of  the  church,  and  set  apart  to  the  office. 

"I  furthermore  told  him  that  neither  Marks  nor  Gurley  had 
ever  been  divested  of  the  authority  they  held  in  Father's  time. 

"5.  Did  they  hold  the  office  of  apostle? 

"A. — Marks  was  not  an  apostle,  in  the  sense  of  being  one  of 
the  Twelve;  Blair  and  Gurley  had  been  chosen  to  the  apos- 
tleship. 

"6.  If  not,  how  could  he  give  something  he  never  had? 

"A. — Anyone  holding  the  Melchisedec  priesthood,  could,  at 
the  command  of  God,  ordain  to  any  office  in  the  church;  and 
could  in  case  the  necessity  required  it,  perform  any  duty  that 
the  apostle  might  under  the  same  conditions.  It  is  provided 
for  in  the  revelation  on  priesthood,  section  104,  of  our  book. 
Don't  know  what  section  in  yours. 

"7.  Question  and  answer  about  correct. 

"8.  Have  you  ever  seen  an  angel  or  heavenly  personage? 

"A.-— I  have  seen  personages  that  I  believe  to  have  been 
angels.  I  then  cited  to  some  instances,  among  them  the  one 
referred  to;  but  not  in  reference  to  'getting  a  doctor.'  It  was  in 
regard  to  my  administering  to  those  who  being  sick  employed  a 
doctor.  I  had  about  concluded  not  to  do  so;  when  I  received 
the  visitation  referred  to.  I  believed  it  to  be  a  messenger  sent 
by  the  good  powers  above,  to  show  me  my  duty.  It  had  no 
more  reference  to  my  sending  for  a  doctor  than  it  had  to 
whether  I  should  hire  a  horse,  or  buy  a  dog.  I  would  not  say 
whether  this  was  an  angel,  as  the  word  'angel'  is  sometimes 
used;  but  it  was  certainly  a  messenger,  and  not  a  human  per- 
sonage, such  as  a  living  man  in  the  flesh,  like  you  and  me. 
This  was  in  substance  the  answer  I  gave  in  my  talk  on  the  sub- 
ject. I  referred  him  to  the  men  who  appeared  to  Abram  as  he 
sat  in  his  tent  at  the  close  of  the  day. 

"9.  I  think  in  this  question  Spencer  used  the  words  'prac- 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  107 

ticed  polygamy.'  To  this  I  replied  as  stated,  adding,  *8he 
always  denied  it;  not  only  to  me  but  to  others.' 

"10.  Did  she,  Emma  Smith,  ever  deny  to  you  that  he  ever 
had  the  revelation  on  spiritual  marriage? 

"A. — She  said  that  so  far  as  her  knowledge  went  he  never  had 
that  revelation.  That  she  believed  that  he  did  not  have  it,  or 
give  it  to  the  church.  That  she  never  saw  it,  never  heard  it 
read,  never  burned  it,  or  had  it  burned,  and  never  had  anything 
to  do  with  it  whatever.  Personally,  I  do  not  believe  that  he 
did  give  such  revelation;  though  I  do  not  know. 

"11  and  12.  There  was  nothing  said  about  the  practice  of 
polygamy  in  the  millennium.  The  question  had  reference  to 
the  'resurrection;'  and  I  replied  that  I  knew  nothing  about  the 
laws  that  would  govern  in  the  resurrection.  That  I  accepted 
what  Jesus  said  that  in  the  resurrection  there  was  neither  mar- 
rying nor  giving  in  marriage.  That  I  knew  of  no  authentic 
teaching  that  defined  what  the  conditions  there  would  be  in 
detail;  but  that  personally  I  was  contented  to  accept  the  condi- 
tions of  the  laws  ordained  of  God  to  govern  there  when  I  got 
there.  That  I  had  lost  one  wife  and  had  another,  and  that  I 
was  not  troubled  about  whether  I  should  have  one,  both,  or 
none  at  all  over  on  the  other  side.  The  revelation  referred  to 
by  Bro.  Luff  was  that  in  answer  to  prayer  upon  the  question  of 
plural  marriage,  or  polygamy,  I  was  commanded  to  'have  noth- 
ing to  do  with  it,  only  to  oppose  it.'  And  I  stated  that  I  had 
kept  the  commandment  to  the  best  of  my  ability. 

"13.  Do  you  believe  that  you  will  assist  us  in  building  this 
temple — the  one  to  be  built  here  in  Independence? 

"(Here  Bro.  Luff  suggested,  'Had  you  not  better  ask  whether 
you  will  assist  us?  We  claim  to  be  the  church  in  succession.') 

"There  was  no  question  whether  I  thought  we  would  unite 
with  the  organized  church  in  Utah;  except  in  the  idea  of  as- 
sisting to  build  the  temple  in  Independence. 

"I  replied:  'As  to  the  question  of  who  will  build  or  assist  to 
build  the  temple  here  (at  Independence),  I  have  no  opinion  to 
express.  I  am  quite  willing  that  the  people  indicated  by  God 
as  his  people  shall  build  it.  If  I  and  my  brethren  with  me 
shall  be  thought  worthy  of  building,  or  even  assisting  to  build 
it,  all  right;  I  shall  be  satisfied  for  the  will  of  God  to  prevail  in 
the  matter.' 

"14.  The  question  of  authority  in  Utah  came  up,  but  I  do  not 
believe  the  question  was  in  the  form  of  number  14.  I  think  it 
was  simply,  'Do  you  believe  the  church  in  Utah  has  authority 
to  administer  in  the  ordinances?' 

"I  replied;  that  we  of  the  Reorganized  Church  had  always 
held  that  there  were  those  in  the  church  that  went  to  Utah  and 
affiliated  with  that  body  who  held  priesthood  derived  from  the 
church  in  Father's  time.  That  undoubtedly  there  were  some 


108  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

there  still  who  had  not  forfeited  their  priesthood  by  transgres- 
sion, and  had  the  right  to  act  for  Christ;  but  that  this  did  not 
attach  to  them  as  a  body;  only  as  individuals. 

"Elder  Spencer  here  interjected,  'President  Woodruff,  for 
instance?' 

"I  continued:  'Excuse  me;  I  do  not  care  to  answer  the 
question  as  to  the  individuals  by  name.  Each  case  must  be 
determined  by  the  conditions  when  the  questions  as  to  indi- 
viduals may  arise  for  consideration;  if  such  contingency 
occurs.' 

"16.  'Do  you  say  [I  think  the  word  "hold"  was  used]  that 
you  have  authority  to  administer  in  the  ordinances  of  the  gos- 
pel?' 

"J.. — Yes  sir.  I  fully  believe  that  I  have  such  authority. 
And  the  evidences  of  the  Lord's  acceptance  and  indorsement  of 
my  ministry  during  the  last  thirty  years  are  quite  numerous. 
I  then  related  some  of  them. 

"17.  In  reply  to  the  question  of  who  would  lead  the  Reorgan- 
ized Church  in  case  of  my  death,  I  told  Mr.  Spencer;  that  the 
care  of  the  church  would  devolve  upon  the  Twelve  as  a  quo- 
rum, until  my  successor  was  pointed  out  by  revelation.  That 
the  same  rights  that  I  held  as  the  son  of  my  father  would 
descend  to  my  sons.  But  that  the  calling  of  anyone  de- 
pended on  worthiness,  as  well  as  lineage,  or  birthright.  That 
the  question  of  the  succession  of  a  son  to  what  his  father  held 
would  turn  on  the  question  of  worth,  other  things  being  equal. 
But  that  the  Lord  by  his  Spirit  would  determine  the  call. 

"18.  I  have  no  recollection  of  any  such  question  as  No.  18; 
certainly,  not  in  that  form.  It  was  evidently  a  forcing  of  the 
text  referring  to  the  turning  of  the  hearts  of  the  fathers  to  the 
sons,  and  of  the  sons  to  the  fathers,  etc.,  and  the  delay  referred 
to  was  in  reference  to  the  baptism  for  the  dead,  etc.  I  had 
nothing  to  say  why  the  Lord  had  not  given  a  permissive  com- 
mand since  the  stoppage  in  such  ministration  mentioned  in  the 
revelation  of  1841;  and  I  so  told  Mr.  Spencer. 

"19.  Mr.  Spencer's  question  about  endowments  and  baptisms 
for  the  dead  was  answered  by  me  in  this  way:  'I  know  of  noth- 
ing in  the  books,  nor  published  teachings  of  Joseph  Smith  and 
his  fellow  ministers  teaching  or  authorizing  endowments.  Nor 
do  I  know  whether  any  endowments  were  given  in  Nauvoo  dur- 
ing my  father's  lifetime.'  I  knew  of  none,  I  did  know  that 
there  were  some  baptisms  for  the  dead  in  tht  river  at  Nauvoo 
for  I  saw  them  performed.  I  did  not  tell  him  that  there  were 
endowments,  for  I  knew  of  none.  My  answer  as  he  gives  it 
makes  me  to  say  there  were  endowments  as  well  as  baptisms 
for  the  dead;  which  is  not  true. 

"20.  Have  you  ever  inhabited  the  Nauvoo  House? 

"A. — I  have  not  lived  in  the  house  as  a  residence.     My  step- 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  109 

father  finished  a  part  of  it,  and  my  mother  lived  there  with 
him  for  several  years,  and  died  in  it  in  April,  1879.  I  cannot 
say  what  my  posterity  may  do.  Personally,  I  do  not  expect  to 
live  in  the  Nauvoo  House,  in  its  present  condition  and  owner- 
ship. It  is  now  occupied  and  owned  by  the  widow  and  son  of 
my  stepfather,  Lewis  Bidamon.  My  stepfather  tore  down  a 
part  of  the  building  and  built  up  another. 

"22.  I  do  not  think  this  question  was  framed  in  this  way.  I 
think  the  question  was  fixed  up  after  the  men  left  me.  The 
question  was,  'If  what  is  promised,  that  is,  a  residence  in  the 
Nauvoo  House,  has  failed  to  be  fulfilled,  might  it  not  be  possi- 
ble that  any  other  promise  made  in  the  same  revelation  may 
fail  also?' 

"To  this  I  replied:  'Yes,  it  is  possible  that  any  promise  made 
to  man  may  fail  so  far  as  he  is  personally  concerned;  for  the 
reason  that  all  the  promises  of  God  to  man  are  conditional,  and 
worthiness  or  unworthiness  has  much  to  do  with  such  things. 
But  I  am  not  aware  that  the  loss  of  any  priesthood  right  I  may 
have  been  entitled  to  as  the  son  of  the  prophet  is  involved  in 
the  loss  of  a  residence  in  the  Nauvoo  House.' 

"23.  There  was  no  question  asked  me  in  regard  to  my  father 
leaving  the  keys  with  me.  The  question  was,  'Did  not  your 
father  take  the  keys  of  his  priesthood  with  him;  as  the  revela- 
tion says  they  shall  not  be  taken  from  him?'  I  answered  that 
the  revelation  stated  that  the  keys  of  this  kingdom  shculd  not 
be  taken  from  him,  neither  here,  nor  in  the  world  to  come. 
That  unless  he  transgressed,  what  was  his  and  what  accrued  to 
him  because  of  his  faithful  work,  should  be  continued  his. 
But  that  this  did  not  affect  the  fact  of  his.  place  being  made 
vacant,  nor  the  right  of  myself,  or  another  to  occupy,  if  God  so 
willed  it.  And  that  the  oracles  were  to  be  given  through  him 
to  the  church.  That  men,  whether  apostles  or  prophets,  were 
not  oracles  in  the  sense  of  the  term  used  in  the  revelations. 
That  the  oracles  there  named  were  the  commandments  of  God 
contained  in  the  books,  or  the  books  themselves  for  that  mat- 
ter; and  the  revelations  of  God  to  the  church.  That  the  reve- 
lations and  commandments  of  God  were  given  to  the  church  as 
a  whole,  and  not  to  the  Twelve  alone;  and  that  was  one  of  our 
reasons  for  the  course  we  had  taken.  That,  in  our  judgment, 
those  oracles  had  been  treated  as  a  light  thing,  and  condemna- 
tion had  resulted,  as  the  revelation  stated. 

"Mr.  Spencer  then  asked  me  whether  the  apostles  were  not 
the  leading  quorum  after  the  Presidency,  as  the  Savior  said, 
'first,  apostles,'  etc. 

"To  this  I  answered,  'Yes.'  I  then  added:  'I  have  always 
held  that,  had  the  Twelve,  as  a  quorum,  taken  the  lead  at  the 
death  of  Father  and  Uncle  Hyrum,  and  carried  on  the  work 
righteously,  and  in  accordance  with  the  gospel  as  given  to 


110  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

Joseph  Smith  by  the  angel,  continuing  in  their  places  as  mis- 
sionaries to  the  world,  until  the  Lord  had  revealed,  or  called  on 
the  one  he  chose  to  lead,  or  become  president  in  its  time,  there 
would  never  have  occurred  such  a  scene  of  apostasy  as  took 
place.  Nor  would  there  have  been  a  doctrine  so  evil  introduced 
as  we  believed  had  been  forced  upon  the  church.  That  the 
Twelve,  as  a  quorum,  should  have  taken  such  steps  as  guarded 
the  church  from  imposition,  until  such  time  as  the  one  chosen 
of  God  to  lead  had  been  called,  as  that  quorum  was  next  in 
authority;  but  that  the  Twelve  in  authority  of  decision  was 
only  one  of  three,  which  were  equal,  as  the  section  on  priest- 
hood clearly  stated — the  Presidency,  the  Twelve,  the  Seventy.' 
(See  Sec.  104.) 

"It  was  in  this  connection  that  I  said  the  Twelve  were  the 
proper  ones  to  lead  after  Father's  death;  and  I  qualified  it  as  I 
here  have  stated.  I  did  not,  at  any  time  nor  in  any  way  indorse 
the  idea,  nor  the  fact  that  the  right  to  lead  the  church,  at  the 
death  of  Joseph  and  Hyrum  Smith,  devolved  unqualifiedly  on 
the  Twelve;  though  Bro.  Luff  stated  after  they  were  gone  that 
Spencer  would  so  report  me. 

"I  know  of  no  revelation  to  me  on  the  relation  to  married 
people,  as  asked  of  in  question  12,  other  than  the  ones  referred 
to  by  me  in  my  biography,  in  which  I  was  told  that  po- 
lygamy was  not  of  God.  And  I  stated  to  Mr.  Spencer,  that  as 
I  had  asked  the  Lord  which  church  I  should  join;  so  had  I 
asked  in  regard  to  polygamy,  and  had  been  as  clearly  and  posi- 
tively told  that  polygamy  was  not  of  God.  I  recollect  of  no 
other  revelation.  If  Bro.  Luff  referred  to  any  other  I  know 
nothing  of  what  it  was  he  referred  to. 

"This  interview  lasted  from  about  9  a.  m.  to  nearly  half  past 
11.  Mr.  Spencer  was  the  talker;  the  rest  scarcely  joining  in 
the  chat.  The  talk  was  long  and  apparently  friendly.  I  made 
no  statements  and  took  no  positions  that  were  either  untrue  in 
themselves,  or  if  understood  were  damaging.  That  Mr.  Spen- 
cer and  his  men  may  distort  and  twist  what  I  did  say  appears 
to  be  possible.  Mr.  Spencer  expressed  the  hope  that  there 
might  be  a  unity  of  the  two,  'you  and  us,'  as  he  expressed  it. 
To  this  both  Bro.  Luff  and  I  expressed  assent,  if  it  could  be  done 
on  the  lines  laid  down  of  the  Lord  in  the  works  of  the  church — 
his  word  and  his  will. 

"I  do  not  take  the  position  that  both  the  Utah  Church  and 
the  Reorganized  Church  are  baptizing  into  the  same  body  of 
Christ.  I  took  no  such  grounds  with  Mr.  Spencer.  Both  Bro. 
Luff  and  I  gave  them  to  understand  that  we  claimed  to  be  the 
church  in  succession.  That  we  had  nothing  to  conceal;  and 
were  willing  what  we  had  done  to  be  investigated. 

"I  believe  the  'set  time'  referred  to,  cannot  be  properly 
applied  to  the  practice  of  endowments  and  baptisms  for  the 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  Ill 

dead.  I  know  of  no  endowments  being  practiced  in  Father's 
time.  There  were  baptisms  for  the  dead  for  awhile  in  the  river 
until  stopped,  as  referred  to  in  section  107,  revelation  of  1841.  I 
am  satisfied  that  the  endowments  practiced  in  Utah  were  not 
had  in  Father's  time;  they  may  have  been  in  Nauvoo  after  he 
died;  though  personally  I  know  of  none  then. 

"I  never  lived  in  the  'Nauvoo  House.'  I  did  live  in  the  Nau- 
voo Mansion.  It  would  be  possible  to  build  the  Nauvoo  House, 
and  me  live  in  it  yet  if  God  so  ordered  it  to  be  done. 

"I  did  not  say  the  leadership  vested  in  the  apostles;  I  did  say 
that  had  they  remained  in  their  places,  and  iniquity  kept  out 
of  the  church,  the  great  confusion  and  wrong  that  resulted 
would  not  have  been  possible.  The  conversation  on  the  leader- 
ship question  was  quite  long;  and  some  of  the  answers  as  sent 
by  you  are  not  only  not  full,  but  are  absolutely  incorrect;  as  in 
question  23,  which  has  three  in  one;  and  the  answer  to  one, 
'Yes,'  referring  to  the  keys  being  taken  by  Father,  etc.,  is 
right;  but  wrong  to  each  of  the  others.  My  answers  were  full, 
and  plain;  at  the  same  time,  guarded  from  incorrectness,  espe- 
cially so  in  regard  to  the  priesthood  and  lineal  right.  They 
have  cooked  both  questions  and  answers. 

"You  are  at  liberty  to  withstand  Elder  Griddle  or  any  of 
them,  all  over  Kansas,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned.  Bro.  J.  R. 
Lambert  is  in  charge  and  will  give  help  if  needed.  But  they 
will  not  meet  you.  Those  men  are  not  at  liberty  to  use  or  mis- 
use an  interview  with  me  which  Mr.  Spencer  said  was  for  their 
own  private  benefit.  Besides  this,  the  elders  are  not  bound  by 
any  absurd  answer  of  mine  to  baffling  questions,  contrary  to  the 
books  of  the  church.  Yours  in  bonds, 

"JOSEPH  SMITH." 

The  foregoing,  in  connection  with  Mr.  Spencer's  version, 
is  published  in  tract  form,  and  can  be  obtained  at  the  Her- 
ald Office,  Lamoni,  Iowa. 

The  following  letter  from  the  pen  of  Elder  Joseph  Luff, 
who  was  present  at  the  interview,  is  important: — 

STONINGTON,  Me.,  Sept.  4,  1898. 
ELDER  ROBT.  J.  PARKER,  Springville,  Utah; 

Dear  Bro.: — Upon  my  arrival  here  this  morning,  yours  of  the 
16th  of  August  was  found  awaiting  me,  having  been  forwarded 
from  home.  It  finds  me  with  somewhat  improved  health,  for 
which  I  feel  thankful  to  God. 

Regarding  the  statement  which  you  say  is  being  circulated 
there,  to  the  effect  that  I  would  not  deny  the  correctness  of  the 


112  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

report  published  in  the  Deseret  News  regarding  the  interview 
had  in  my  house  and  in  my  presence,  between  President  Joseph 
Smith  and  Elder  Spencer*  and  three  other  elders  of  the  Utah 
Church,  I  have  only  this  to  say  and  I  put  it  plainly:  IT  is  FALSE. 
I  have  denied  its  correctness  more  than  fifty  times,  and  many  of 
the  Utah  elders  whom  I  have  met  in  various  places  know  that 
I  have  denied  it  with  emphasis  to  them  and  pointed  out  some 
of  its  almost  self-evident  falsities.  It  is  a  garbled  thing  in 
some  of  its  parts.  It  is  disarranged  as  to  the  order  of  the  real 
interview,  and  in  other  instances  it  states  the  very  opposite  of 
what  President  Smith  said.  When  the  thing  was  first  shown  to 
me  I  denounced  it  as  a  vicious  misrepresentation  of  the  inter- 
view and  wrote  to  President  Smith  to  that  effect.  I  pointed 
out  several  of  its  bad  features  to  different  parties. 

The  statement  afterwards  published  by  President  Smith  rela- 
tive to  the  interview  is  correct,  and  a  copy  of  it  can  be  had  at 
Herald  Office.  Surely  those  people  who  account  President 
Smith  to  be  a  knave  will  not  pretend  to  believe  him  to  be  a  fool; 
yet  such  he  must  needs  be  if  in  that  interview  he  said  what  those 
elders  published  over  their  names,  for  it  sets  forth  a  direct  con- 
tradiction of  his  public  and  private  utterances  and  all  his  writ- 
ings on  the  subjects  involved,  as  can  be  easily  discovered  by 
reference  to  said  writings.  If  Elder  Spencer  intended  to  hon- 
estly represent  President  Smith,  he  ought  to  have  pursued  a 
different  course  from  that  which  he  followed.  He  pretended 
to  have  some  questions  down  in  writing  and  would  ask  one  at  a 
time,  then  begin  writing  when  an  answer  was  given,  and,  that 
too  without  hearing  the  answers  in  full.  He  never  showed  us  a 
line  he  had  written  nor  read  a  line  of  it  in  our  hearing.  As 
these  men  left  my  house  door  I  turned  to  President  Smith  and 
said:  "The  next  time  you  hear  from  that  interview  you  will 
scarcely  be  able  to  identify  it,"  and  the  sequel  proved  that  I 
was  correct.  It  was  a  scandalous  piece  of  work  and  far  beneath 
the  dignity  of  men,  to  say  nothing  of  elders  of  a  church,  and  you 
are  perfectly  at  liberty  to  use  this  statement  from  me  wherever 
and  however  and  whenever  you  please,  and  to  let  everybody 
know  that  I  brand  the  Deseret  News'  published  report  of  said 
interview  as  an  unprincipled  thing  and  as  bearing  the  indica- 
tions that  characterize  the  work  of  unscrupulous  men. 

Experience  of  several  years  among  men  who  have  been  seek- 
ing to  bolster  up  Utah  Mormonism  has  confirmed  me  in  the 
belief  that  I  was  slow  to  accept,  at  first;  viz.,  that  it  would 
require  more  than  an  ordinary  lifetime  to  follow  up  and  expose 
the  malicious  misrepresentations  of  the  Reorganization  that 
have  been  created  and  peddled  by  advocates  of  the  Utah 
Church  philosophy.  It  may  be  possible  that  in  Utah,  Elder 
Spencer's  word  may  be  taken  in  preference  to  ours;  but  the 
all-seeing  God  of  truth  knows  who  are  publishing  the  naked 


CHURCH   PRESIDENCY.  113 

facts,  and  to  him  my  testimony  is  committed,  awaiting  the 
judgment  hour.  Yours  for  truth, 

JOSEPH  LUFF. 
—Saints'  Herald,  Sept.  14,  1898. 

In  the  Deseret  News  for  October  15,  1898,  Mr.  Spencer 
seeks  to  find  a  conflict  between  President  Smith  and  Elder 
Luff,  by  quoting  President  Smith  as  stating, 

"The  questions  were  not  written  in  my  presence,  nor  did 
I  see  them  if  written;  neither  were  the  answers  shown  me, 
nor  written  in  my  presence  to  my  knowledge." 

He  then  quotes  Elder  Luff  as  writing  the  following: — 

"He  pretended  to  have  some  questions  down  in  writing  and 
would  ask  one  at  a  time,  then  begin  writing  when  an  answer 
was  given,  and,  that,  too,  without  hearing  the  answer  in  full!" 

To  make  out  his  case  of  conflict  Mr.  Spencer  construes 
President  Smith's  words,  as  given  above,  to  mean  that 
President  Smith  did  not  remember  that  Spencer  wrote  in 
his  presence,  while  Elder  Luff  admits  that  he  did  write. 
It  will  be  observed  that  President  Smith  does  not  say 
whether  he  did  or  did  not  write,  but  he  states  that  the 
answers  given  in  the  interview  were  not  written  in  his  presence  to 
his  knowledge. 

We  leave  these  statements  without  further  comment  that 
"the  unbiased  reader"  may  read  and  compare. 


CHAPTER  11. 

BRIGHAM  YOUNG — His  CAREER— WHEREABOUTS  OF  AUTHORI- 
TIES— AUTHORITIES  NOT  IN  HARMONY — TWELVE  SUSTAINED- 
SEASONABLE  NOTICE  PROMISED  —  GROWTH  OF  PRESIDING 
IDEA— REBAPTISM— REORDINATION — REORGANIZATION — PROM- 
ISE OF  SEASONABLE  NOTICE  VIOLATED — CHANGES  MADE- 
WRITTEN  WORD  DISCARDED — ADAM-GOD — VULGAR  TEACH- 
ING —  CONCERNING  DEBTS  —  EXPERT  SCOUNDRELS  —  BLOOD 
ATONEMENT — POLYGAMY. 

IT  may  be  well  now  to  tracs  the  leading  events  of  the 
movement  under  Elder  Brigham  Young  and  his  associates 
after  June  27,  1844,  the  date  of  the  death  of  Joseph  and 
Hyrum  Smith. 

At  that  time  Sidney  Bigdon,  the  only  remaining  member 
of  the  Presidency,  was  in  Pennsylvania;  Brigham  Young, 
H.  C.  Kimball,  William  Smith,  Orson  Pratt,  Wilford 
Woodruff,  Orson  Hyde,  and  Lyman  Wight,  of  the  Twelve, 
were  in  the  Eastern  States;  P.  P.  Pratt  was  near  Utica, 
New  York;  J.  E.  Page  was  at  Pittsburg,  Pennsylvania; 
and  G-.  A.  Smith  was  in  Michigan;  John  Taylor  and  Willard 
Richards  being  the  only  members  of  the  Twelve  at  Nauvoo. 

The  anxiety  was  great,  as  the  people  were  unprepared 
for  such  an  event,  and  so  with  much  trust  did  they  look 
forward  to  the  return  of  these  officers,  anticipating  that 
they  would  be  able  to  lead  them  out  of  their  dilemma. 

Parley  P.  Pratt  was,  we  believe,  the  first  of  these  absent 
officers  to  appear  upon  the  scene.  His  attitude  can  be 
understood  from  the  communication  which  he  claimed  to 
have  received,  quoted  on  page  75. 

In  a  few  weeks,  however,  Elder  Rigdon  and  several  of 
the  Twelve  were  in  Nauvoo.  but  the  anxiously  waiting 
saints  found  no  union  among  their  officers.  Elder  Rigdon 


CHURCH   PRESIDENCY.  115 

made  certain  claims,  not  necessary  to  define  here.  Elder 
Brigham  Young  and  others  disputed  these  claims,  and  a 
bitter  rivalry  ensued.  Elder  Rigdon  with  the  consent  of 
local  authorities  appointed  a  meeting  for  August  8,  1844, 
to  present  his  ciaims.  The  time  came  and  Elder  Brigham 
Young  assumed  control  of  the  meeting.  This  meeting 
resulted  in  a  vote  to  support  the  "Twelve  in  their  calling." 
(Times  and  Seasons,  Vol.  5,  p.  638.)  This  seemed  innocent 
enough,  and,  of  course,  the  majority  of  the  people  voted 
for  it,  and  Rigdon's  claims  were  not  placed  before  the 
assembly  for  their  vote. 

However,  in  the  issue  of  the  Times  and  Seasons  for  Sep- 
tember 2,  the  very  paper  in  which  the  minutes  of  the 
above  meeting  were  published,  the  Editor,  who  was  John 
Taylor,  of  the  Twelve,  made  a  statement  in  which  he  does 
not  pretend  to  quote  the  language  of  the  resolution,  but 
relates  the  incident  in  rather  stronger  language  than  the 
minutes  justify.  We  give  the  notice  here  both  for  present 
use  and  future  reference: — 

Great  excitement  prevails  throughout  the  world  to  know 
"who  shall  be  the  successor  of  Joseph  Smith?" 

In  reply,  we  say,  be  patient,  be  patient  a  little,  till  the  proper 
time  comes,  and  we  will  tell  you  all.  "Great  wheels  move 
slow."  At  present,  we  can  say  that  a  special  conference  of  the 
church  was  held  in  Nauvoo  on  the  8th  ult.,  and  it  was  carried 
without  a  dissenting  voice,  that  the  "Twelve"  should  preside  over 
the  whole  church,  and  when  any  alteration  in  the  presidency 
shall  be  required,  seasonable  notice  will  be  given;  and  the 
elders  abroad,  will  best  exhibit  their  wisdom  to  all  men,  by 
remaining  silent  on  those  things  they  are  ignorant  of.  Bishops 
Whitney  and  Miller  have  been  appointed  trustees,  to  manage 
the  financial  concerns  of  the  church,  and  will  soon  enter  on  the 
duties  of  their  calling. — Times  and  Seasons,  Vol.  5,  p.  632. 

Not  forgetting  this  promise  of  "seasonable  notice,"  let 
us  see  how  this  idea  of  presiding  grew,  and  how  gradually 
it  was  introduced  to  the  notice  of  the  people.  As  we  have 
seen,  the  Twelve  were  first  sustained  "in  their  calling." 
Two  months  later,  at  the  October  conference,  the  Twelve 


116  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

were  presented  and  sustained  separately.  In  the  case  of 
Brigham  Young  he  was  sustained  as  the  "President  of  the 
Quorum  of  the  Twelve,  as  one  of  the  Twelve  and  First 
Presidency  of  the  church."  (Times  and  Seasons,  Vol.  5,  p, 
692.) 

At  the  General  Conference  of  April,  1845,  they  ventured 
a  little  further,  and  '  'Elder  Phelps  moved  that  this  confer- 
ence accept  the  Twelve  as  the  First  Presidency  and  lead-" 
ers  of  this  church.  Carried  unanimously."  (Times  and 
Seasons,  Vol.  6,  p.  869.) 

At  the  October  conference  of  1845,  "Father  John  Smith, 
the  President  of  the  Stake,  then  arose  and  presented  the 
Twelve  as  the  Presidents  of  the  whole  church;  which  was 
seconded  and  carried  unanimously."  (Times  and  Seasons, 
Vol.  6,  p.  1008.) 

Thus  step  by  step  did  they  proceed,  claiming  more  and 
more,  until  by  a  succession  of  events,  not  necessary  to 
mention  here,  they  found  themselves  in  the  Salt  Lake  Val- 
ley, in  August,  1847,  when  strange  events  took  place. 

Tullidge,  in  his  "Life  of  Brigham  Young,"  quotes  Mr. 
Woodruff  as  follows: — 

"On  the  6th  of  August,  the  Twelve  were  rebaptized.  This  we 
considered  a  privilege  and  a  duty.  As  we  had  come  into  a  glori- 
ous valley  to  locate  and  build  up  Zion,  we  felt  like  renewing  our 
covenants  before  the  Lord  and  each  other.  We  soon  repaired  to 
the  water,  and  President  Young  went  down  into  the  water  and 
baptized  all  his  brethren  of  the  Twelve  present.  He  then  con- 
firmed us,  and  sealed  upon  us  our  apostleship,  and  all  the  keys, 
powers,  and  blessings  belonging  to  that  office.  Brother  Heber 
C.  Kimball  baptized  and  confirmed  President  Brigham  Young. 
The  following  were  the  names  and  order  of  those  present: 
Brigham  Young,  Heber  C.  Kimball,  Orson  Pratt,  Willard  Rich- 
ards, Wilford  Woodruff,  George  A.  Smith,  and  Amasa  Lyman. 
Ezra  T.  Benson  had  been  dispatched  several  days  before  to 
meet  the  companies  on  the  road. 

"In  the  afternoon  of  the  next  day,  the  Twelve  went  to  the 
Temple  block  to  select  their  inheritances.  .  .  . 

"During  the  same  evening  the  Twelve  went  to  City  Creek, 
and  Heber  C.  Kimball  baptized  fifty-five  members  of  the  camp, 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  117 

for  the  remission  of  their  sins;  and  they  were  confirmed  under 
the  hands  of  President  Young,  Orson  Pratt,  Wilford  Woodruff, 
George  A.  Smith,  and  Amasa  Lyman;  President  Young  being 
mouth. 

"On  the  next  day  (Sunday,  August  8),  the  whole  camp  of 
Israel  renewed  their  covenants  before  the  Lord  by  baptism. 
There  were  two  hundred  and  twenty-four  baptized  this  morn- 
ing, making  two  hundred  and  eighty-eight  rebaptized  in  the 
last  three  days."— Life  of  Brigham  Young,  pp.  180-182. 

Why  should  these  men  who  years  before  had  made  a 
covenant  with  God  in  baptism  and  whose  hands  had  bap- 
tized hundreds  of  others  be  rebaptized?  Did  they  not  feel 
in  their  own  souls  that  they  had  broken  their  covenant? 
Was  not  this  effort  the  result  of  a  conviction  that  they  had 
lost  favor  with  God  and  a  desire  to  regain  his  approbation? 
Mr.  Woodruff  says:  ''This  we  considered  a  privilege  and  a 
duty"  "We  felt  like  renewing  our  covenants  before  the  Lord 
and  each  other. " 

Under  what  circumstances  is  the  renewal  of  a  covenant 
in  baptism  necessary?  We  will  let  Orson  Hyde,  of  their 
own  number,  answer: — 

When  members  of  our  church  have  become  cold  and  indiffer- 
ent by  the  neglect  of  duty,  and  have  fallen  into  a  lukewarm 
state,  but  afterwards  cherish  a  desire  to  be  rebaptized,  and  cove- 
nant anew  to  keep  the  commandments  of  God,  it  is  their  right 
ard  privilege  to  confess  their  sins,  humble  themselves  before 
God,  and  do  their  first  work  by  being  immersed  in  water,  and  thus 
their  second  baptism  is  no  less  for  the  remission  or  forgiveness  of 
sins  than  their  first;  yet  to  break  a  solemn  covenant  by  becom- 
ing cold,  indifferent,  or  lukewarm,  so  as  to  render  rebaptism 
often  necessary,  is  certainly  dangerous,  for  repeated  neglect  of 
duty,  and  the  frequent  breaking  of  your  covenant,  will  render 
you  unworthy  the  protection  of  God's  Spirit,  and  you  will  find 
yourselves  caught  in  the  snare  of  the  Devil  in  some  unexpected 
moment.—  Millennial  Star,  Vol.  8,  p.  136. 

If  Mr.  Hyde  was  right,  these  men  had  broken  their  cove- 
nant. His  warning  was  timely;  and,  as  subsequent  events 
proved,  the  dire  consequences  which  he  pointed  out  were 
realized.  Subsequently  they  not  only  extended  the  privi- 
lege of  rebaptism,  but  enjoined  it  upon  all  who  came  there, 


118  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

as  many  can  testify,  and  as  the  following  counsel  from 
Brigham  Young,  given  on  October  23,  1853,  indicates: — 

I  will  refer  again  to  the  brethren  and  sisters  who  have  lately 
come  over  the  plains.  My  counsel  to  them  to-day  is,  as  it  has 
been  on  former  occasions  to  all  who  have  come  into  these  val- 
leys, Go  and  be  baptized  for  the  remission  of  sins,  repenting  of 
all  your  wanderings  from  the  path  of  righteousness,  believing 
firmly,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  that  all  your  sins  will  be 
washed  away.  If  any  of  you  inquire  what  is  the  necessity  of 
your  being  baptized,  as  you  have  not  committed  any  sins,  I 
answer,  it  is  necessary  to  fulfill  all  righteousness. — Journal  of 
Discourses,  Vol.  2,  p.  89. 

If,  as  Mr.  Hyde  affirms,  the  breaking  of  the  covenant 
necessitates  rebaptism,  and  as  Mr.  Young  affirms,  all  who 
came  "into  these  valleys"  needed  rebaptism,  then  it  fol- 
lows that  in  the  act  of  going  there  and  indorsing  that  insti- 
tution the  covenant  made  in  baptism  before  going  there 
was  broken. 

Right  here  permit  us  to  inform  the  reader  that  in  the 
Reorganization  baptisms  administered  by  proper  authority 
in  the  days  of  Joseph  Smith  are  considered  legal  and  suffi- 
cient. In  Utah  one  having  only  this  baptism  would  be 
asked  to  renew  it,  thus  either  throwing  discredit  upon  the 
former  baptism  or  acknowledging  that  the  former  cove- 
nant had  been  broken  by  their  act  of  accepting  the  Utah 
church.  Why,  then,  should  we  be  censured  for  accepting 
the  logical  conclusions  of  their  own  teachings;  viz.,  that 
they  are  a  rejected  and  covenant-breaking  church? 

Returning  to  the  strange  acts  of  this  band  of  pioneers 
in  August,  1847,  we  learn  that  they  not  only  renewed  their 
baptismal  covenant,  but  that  the  apostleship  conferred 
upon  them  under  the  administration  of  Joseph  Smith  was 
considered  inadequate,  and  the  keys  and  powers  by  Joseph 
conferred,  of  which  they  now  boast  so  much,  were  consid- 
ered insufficient  for  their  purpose.  Mr.  Woodruff  says: 
"He  [Brigham]  then  confirmed  us,  and  sealed  upon  us  our 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  119 

apostleship,  and  all  the  keys,  powers,  and  blessings  be- 
longing to  that  office." 

If  anything  more  is  needed  to  convince  one  that  these 
men  had  turned  from  the  church  over  which  Joseph  the 
Martyr  presided,  follow  them  back  to  Winter  Quarters 
on  the  Missouri  River  where  they  arrived  October  31, 1847. 

Note  the  following: — 

On  the  3d  of  December  a  conference  was  held  on  the  east  side 
of  the  river;  but,  after  having  resolved  to  build  immediately 
a  large  tabernacle  for  the  congregation,  it  adjourned  for  three 
weeks. 

There  was  a  feast  and  a  grand  council,  December  5,  at  the 
house  of  Elder  Hyde,  who  had  been  in  charge  at  Winter  Quar- 
ters during  the  absence  of  the  pioneers. 

In  this  council  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  their  President  first 
expressed  his  views  concerning  the  reorganization  of  the  Quo- 
rum of  the  First  Presidency,  and  wished  those  present  to  do 
the  same  in  their  order,  when  Heber  C.  Kimball,  Orson  Pratt, 
Wilford  Woodruff,  Willard  Richards,  George  A.  Smith,  Amasa 
Lyman,  and  Ezra  T.  Benson,  spoke  to  the  question.  President 
Young  closed. 

Orson  Hyde  then  moved  that  Brigham  Young  be  President  of 
the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints,  and  that  he 
nominate  his  two  councilors  to  form  the  First  Presidency. 
Wilford  Woodruff  seconded  the  motion,  and  it  was  then  carried 
unanimously. 

President  Young  then  nominated  Heber  0.  Kimball  as  his 
first  councilor,  and  Willard  Richards  as  his  second  councilor, 
which  was  seconded  and  carried  unanimously. — Life  of  Brig- 
ham  Young,  p.  188. 

In  this  council  of  the  Twelve,  December  5,  1847,  Brig- 
ham  Young  first  expressed  his  views  on  this  movement, 
then  immediately,  without  further  consideration  or  notice, 
this  council  proceeded  to  elevate  three  of  their  number  to 
the  Presidency.  In  this  council  there  were  only  seven  of 
those  who  composed  the  quorum  at  the  death  of  Joseph 
Smith;  viz.,  Brigham  Young,  H.  C.  Kimball,  Willard  Rich- 
ards, Orson  Pratt,  Orson  Hyde,  Wilford  Woodruff,  and  G. 
A.  Smith.  It  is  well  known  that  William  Smith,  Lyman 
Wight,  and  John  E.  Page,  had  not  acted  with  them  for 


120  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

some  time,  and  were  never  at  Winter  Quarters.  John 
Taylor  and  P.  P.  Pratt  were  in  Salt  Lake  Valley.  These 
five  were  not  only  absent,  but  could  have  known  nothing 
of  such  a  thing  being  contemplated.  So  that  to  get  a 
majority  vote  of  the  Twelve,  as  left  by  Joseph,  to  elevate 
Brigham  Young,  he  must  vote  for  himself.  Yes,  more;  his 
election  depended  upon  his  own  vote. 

Then,  too,  what  becomes  of  the  solemn  promise  made 
just  after  the  death  of  Joseph,  when  the  saints  were  bid- 
den, "Be  patient,  be  patient,"  under  the  assurance  that 
"when  any  alteration  in  the  Presidency  shall  be  required, 
seasonable  notice  will  be  given"?  (See  page  115.) 

Nor  was  this  seasonable  notice  given  before  this  action 
was  presented  to  and  indorsed  by  the  body  on  December 
24,  1847.  The  only  possible  time  for  notice  was  the  nine- 
teen days  between  December  5  and  December  24.  So 
when  we  consider  that  this  took  place  on  the  frontier, 
where  there  were  neither  railroads  nor  telegraphs  within 
hundreds  of  miles  of  the  scene  of  action,  we  must  conclude 
that  the  great  mass  of  the  church  knew  nothing  of  such  a 
move  being  anticipated. 

They  claim  that  there  were  one  thousand  present.  Sup- 
pose there  were  that  many,  which  is  very  doubtful,  that 
was  about  one  out  of  every  one  hundred  and  fifty  compos- 
ing the  church  in  1844 — one  representing  one  hundred  and 
forty-nine  others,  without  the  knowledge  or  consent  of 
those  represented,  and  that  too  when  no  intimation  had 
been  given  of  the  business  to  be  done.  Thus  did  Brigham 
Young  and  his  colleagues  "reorganize  the  church"  as  he 
(Brigham)  terms  it  (see  p.  85);  and  yet  Mr.  Roberts  comes 
forward  and  asserts  that,  "Any  organization  claiming  to 
be  the  'Reorganized  church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter-day 
Saints'  is  a  counterfeit  and  writes  fraud  in  the  very  title 
of  it."  (Seep.  84.) 

Again,  while  Mr.  Roberts  indorses  the  above  proceed- 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  121 

ings  he  files  a  complaint  against  the  Amboy  Conference  of 
1860,  alleging  insufficient  notice  and  small  attendance  (see 
Roberts,  p.  74-5),  though  the  Amboy  Conference  had  six 
months'  notice,  the  October  conference  of  1859  having 
1  'adjourned  to  meet  at  Amboy,  Illinois,  April  6,  1860"  (see 
Saints'  Herald,  Vol.  1,  p.  27),  and  that  too  when  means  of 
communication  were  ample  to  spread  the  news  to  every 
part  of  the  world  where  saints  were  found.  Surely  Mr. 
Roberts  must  be  thoroughly  imbued  with  the  theory  that 
"Orthodoxy,  my  lord,  is  my  doxy;  and  heterodoxy  is  some 
other  man's  doxy!" 

But  how  did  Mr.  Young  procure  the  indorsement  of  so 
many  of  the  leading  men?  After  that  transformation  pro- 
cedure, spoken  of  in  the  first  chapter  of  this  work,  when 
he  found  himself  in  the  favor  of  a  large  number,  and  when 
those  whom  he  could  not  lead  had  manifested  their  inde- 
pendence, he  began  gradually  to  remove  from  office  and 
places  of  influence  all  whom  he  had  any  reason  to  fear 
would  oppose  him.  First,  Sidney  Rigdon,  of  the  First 
Presidency,  was  disposed  of;  then  William  Smith,  John  E. 
Page,  and  Lyman  Wight,  of  the  Twelve,  were  either 
expelled  or  placed  under  censure  to  destroy  their  influence. 

To  supply  their  places  Amasa  Lyman  was  presented, 
together  with  Sidney  Rigdon,  as  a  counselor  in  the  Presi- 
dency, and  offered  the  same  position  to  the  Twelve.  (Times 
and  Seasons,  Vol.  5,  p.  638.)  Lyman  accepted;  Rigdon 
objected.  Rigdon  was  expelled;  Lyman  was  received  as 
one  of  the  Twelve.  (Ibid.,  p.  692.) 

Later  (July  6,  1846),  Ezra  T.  Benson  was  received  into 
the  Twelve,  but  just  how  he  was  designated  for  the  posi- 
tion we  have  not  learned. 

George  Miller,  who  was  called  of  God  to  succeed  Edward 
Partridge  as  Presiding  Bishop  (Doctrine  and  Covenants 
107:  8),  was  relegated  to  second  place  and  N.  K.  Whitney 
placed  over  him.  (Times  and  Seasons,  Vol.  5,  p.  693.) 


122  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

* 

William  Marks  was  removed  from  his  position  as  Presi- 
dent of  the  Stake  of  Nauvoo,  and  John  Smith  installed  in 
his  place.  (Ibid.,  p.  692.)  Elder  Marks  was  also  removed 
as  President  of  the  High  Council,  and  was  succeeded  by 
Samuel  Bent.  (Times  and  Seasons,  Vol.  6,  p.  870.) 

Josiah  Butterfield,  of  the  Presidents  of  Seventy,  was  cut 
off  the  church  (no  reason  stated  for  the  act)  and  Jedediah 
M.  Grant  chosen  to  succeed  him.  (Times  and  Seasons,  Vol. 

5,  p.  693.) 

Lyman  Wight  and  John  Snider  were  removed  from  the 
Nauvoo  House  building  committee,  and  Amasa  Lyman  and 
George  A.  Smith  put  in  their  places.  (Millennial  Star,  Vol. 

6,  p.  91.) 

Several  changes  were  made  in  the  High  Council. 

Nine  extra  quorums  of  Seventy  were  created;  a  part  of 
them  at  least  were  the  nominees  of  Brigham  Young.  (See 
p.  94.) 

Several  were  expelled  from  the  church  without  trial,  and 
without  a  statement  of  the  cause  being  given.  (Times  and 
Seasons,  Vol.  5,  p.  687.)  Some  were  suspended  without 
rabor  or  trial  for  voting  for  Elder  Bigdon,  and  some  even 
suspended  on  anticipated  acts  of  displeasure.  (Ibid.,  p.  686.) 

These  and  other  changes  too  numerous  to  mention  reveal 
that  the  tendency  was  to  place  men  in  positions  of  trust 
who  could  be  relied  upon  to  obey  counsel  regardless  of  the 
teaching  of  the  law. 

As  early  as  September,  1844,  when  Elder  William  Marks 
in  his  defense  of  Elder  Bigdon  appealed  to  the  written 
word,  Elder  Brigham  Young  replied  and  in  that  reply 
said:— 

If  this  people  have  no  evidence  but  the  written  word,  it  is 
quite  time  to  go  to  the  river  and  be  baptized,  etc. — Times  and 
Seasons,  Vol.  5,  p.  666. 

As  to  a  person  not  knowing  more  than  the  written  word,  let 
me  tell  you  that  there  are  keys  that  the  written  word  never 
spoke  of,  nor  never  will. — Times  and  Seasons,  Vol.  5,  p.  667. 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  128 

This  was  early  paving  the  way  to  teach  that  which  the 
word  of  God  did  not  contain. 

In  harmony  with  this  thought  Elder  Brigham  Young 
said  on  April  6,  1845:— 

Joseph  in  his  lifetime  did  not  receive  everything  connected 
with  the  doctrine  of  redemption,  but  he  has  left  the  key  with 
those  who  understand  how  to  obtain  and  teach  to  this  great 
people  all  that  is  necessary  for  their  salvation  and  exaltation  in 
the  celestial  kingdom  of  our  God. — Times  and  Seasons,  Vol.  6, 
p.  955. 

This  was  preparing  the  way  for  the  introduction  of 
principles  which  Joseph  had  not  taught.  Many  like 
passages  can  be  produced  from  their  record  all  through 
the  years  until  now,  of  teachings  which  had  a  tendency,  if 
believed,  to  train  the  people  to  obey  counsel  and  follow 
their  leaders  without  asking  whether  Joseph  taught 
it  or  not,  or  whether  it  was  taught  in  the  word  of  God. 
This  led  to  the  condition  of  things  described  by  Brigham 
Young  on  September  11,  1853:— 

If  I  have  any  knowledge  touching  the  condition  of  this  peo- 
ple at  the  present  time,  and  the  way  they  are  taught,  led,  coun- 
seled, and  dictated  by  those  who  go  before  them  to  open  up  the 
way,  it  is  directly  opposite  of  that  we  saw  in  the  days  of  Joseph 
the  Prophet. — Journal  of  Discourses,  Vol.  1,  p.  78. 

Mr.  Young  may  have  intended  that  these  words  should 
have  a  very  limited  application,  but  the  tendency  of  his 
teaching  was  to  bring  about  a  general  condition  of  depar- 
ture from  original  principles.  This  made  it  easy  for  him 
to  introduce  doctrines  and  principles  not  taught  under 
Joseph  Smith's  administration,  nor  in  the  word  of  God. 
Some  of  these  departures  we  will  notice  briefly,  as  the 
space  designed  for  this  work  will  not  admit  of  an  extended 
examination. 

Nowhere  in  the  standard  books  of  the  church  or  in  the 
teachings  of  Joseph  Smith  can  anything  like  the  following 
from  Brigham  Young  be  found: — 

Now  hear  it,  O  inhabitants  of  the  earth,  Jew  and  Gentile, 


124  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

Saint  and  sinner!  When  our  father  Adam  came  into  the  gar- 
den of  Eden,  he  came  into  it  with  a  celestial  body,  and  brought 
Eve,  one  of  his  wives,  with  him.  He  helped  to  make  and  organ- 
ize this  world.  He  is  MICHAEL,  the  Archangel,  the  ANCIENT  OF 
DAYS!  about  whom  holy  men  have  written  and  spoken — HE  it 
our  FATHER  and  our  GOD,  and  the  only  God  with  whom  WE  have  to 
do. — Journal  of  Discourses,  Vol.  1,  p.  50. 

Here  is  another  illustration  of  where  a  departure  from 
the  written  word  led  Mr.  Young  and  those  who  sustained 
him:— 

I  have  given  you  a  few  leading  items  upon  this  subject,  but 
a  great  deal  more  remains  to  be  told.  Now,  remember  from 
this  time  forth,  and  forever,  that  Jesus  Christ  was  not  begotten 
by  the  Holy  Ghost.  I  will  repeat  a  little  anecdote.  I  was  in 
conversation  with  a  certain  learned  professor  upon  this  sub- 
ject, when  I  replied,  to  this  idea — "if  the  Son  was  begotten 
by  the  Holy  Ghost,  it  would  be  very  dangerous  to  baptize  and 
confirm  females,  and  give  the  Holy  Ghost  to  them,  lest  he 
should  beget  children,  to  be  palmed  upon  the  Elders  by  the 
people,  bringing  the  Elders  into  great  difficulties. — Journal  of 
Discourses,  Vol.  1,  p.  51. 

We  feel  to  apologize  to  our  readers  for  even  quoting  that 
which  approaches  so  nearly  upon  the  vulgar  and  obscene; 
but  the  depths  of  degradation  and  shame  to  Which  this 
departure  from  God's  word  led  this  man  can  only  be  real- 
ized by  letting  him  speak  for  himself. 

Contrast  the  above  with  the  word  of  God: — 

Now  the  birth  of  Jesus  Christ  was  on  this  wise:  When  his 
mother  Mary  was  espoused  to  Joseph,  before  they  came 
together,  she  was  found  with  child  of  the  Holy  Ghost. — Matt. 
1:18. 

Eeader,  will  you  follow  the  leadership  of  a  man  who 
holds  the  keys  by  which  such  filthy  and  disgusting  things 
are  revealed,  and  thus  place  yourself  in  opposition  to  the 
word  of  God? 

Here  is  another  rich  treasure  brought  to  light  by  this 
holder  of  special  keys: — 

I  wish  to  impress  another  thing  upon  your  minds.  An  Elder, 
who  is  willing  to  preach  the  Gospel,  borrows  a  hundred  or  a 
thousand  dollars  from  you,  and  you  never  breathe  the  first  com- 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  125 

plaint  against  him,  until  you  came  home  to  this  valley,  but 
after  you  have  been  here  for  a  few  days,  you  follow  me  round 
and  fill  my  ears  with  complaints  against  this  brother,  and  ask 
me  what  he  has  done  with  your  money?  I  say,  "I  do  not 
know."  Thus  you  are  distressed  and  in  misery,  all  the  day 
long,  to  get  it  back  again.  If  an  Elder  has  borrowed  from  you, 
and  you  find  he  is  going  to  apostatize,  then  you  may  tighten 
the  screws  upon  him;  but  if  he  is  willing  to  preach  the  Gos- 
pel, without  purse  or  scrip,  it  is  none  of  your  business  what  he 
does  with  the  money  he  has  borrowed  from  you. — Journal  of 
Discourses,  Vol.  1,  p.  340. 

Surely  there  is  nothing  in  the  written  word  nor  in  the 
teachings  of  Joseph  Smith  like  this. 
Another  specimen: — 

I  have  many  a  time,  in  this  stand,  dared  the  world  to  produce 
as  mean  devils  as  we  can.  We  can  beat  them  at  anything. 
We  have  the  greatest  and  smoothest  liars  in  the  world,  the  cun- 
ningest  and  most  adroit  thieves,  and  any  other  shade  of  character 
that  you  can  mention. 

We  can  pick  out  elders  in  Israel  right  here  who  can  beat  the 
world  at  gambling;  who  can  handle  the  cards;  can  cut  and 
shuffle  them  with  the  smartest  rogue  on  God's  footstool.  I  can 
produce  elders  here  who  can  shave  their  smartest  shavers,  and 
take  their  money  from  them.  We  can  beat  the  world  at  any 
game. — Deseret  News,  Vol.  6,  p.  291;  Journal  of  Discourses,  Vol.  4, 
p.  77. 

We  can  hardly  believe  that  Mr.  Young  intended  to 
indorse  all  this  rascality  and  corruption,  and  yet  the  rea- 
son which  he  assigns  for  this  deplorable  state  of  affairs 
seems  to  commit  him  to  an  indorsement. 

Here  it  is: — 

We  can  beat  them  because  we  have  men  here  that  live  in  the 
light  of  the  Lord;  that  have  the  holy  priesthood,  and  hold  the  keys 
of  the  kingdom  of  God.  But  you  may  go  through  all  the  sec- 
tarian world,  and  you  cannot  find  a  man  capable  of  opening  the 
door  of  the  kingdom  of  God  to  admit  others  in.  We  can  do 
that.  We  can  pray  the  best,  preach  the  best,  and  sing  the 
best.  We  are  the  best  looking  and  finest  set  of  people  on  the 
face  of  the  earth;  and  they  can  begin  any  game  they  please, 
and  we  are  on  hand,  and  can  beat  them  at  anything  they  have 
a  mind  to  begin.  They  may  make  sharp  tbeir  two-edged 
swords,  and  I  will  turn  out  the  elders  of^Israel  with  greased 
feathers,  and  whip  them  to  death.  We  are  not  to  be  beat.  We 


126  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

expect  to  be  a  stumbling  block  to  the  whole  world,  and  a  rock 
of  offence  to  them. — JDeseret  News,  Vol.  6,  p.  291;  Journal  of  Dis- 
courses, Vol.  4,  p.  77. 

It  would  be  idle  to  dispute  the  claim  of  Brigham  Young 
that  he  held  "keys  that  the  written  word  never  spoke  of, 
nor  never  will."  But  whence  came  they?  From  heaven, 
or  from  beneath — from  God,  or  from  Satan? 

Let  Moroni  answer: — 

Wherefore,  all  things  which  are  good,  cometh  of  God;  and 
that  which  is  evil,  cometh  of  the  devil;  for  the  devil  is  an 
enemy  unto  God,  and  fighteth  against  him  continually,  and  in- 
viteth  and  enticeth  to  sin,  and  to  do  that  which  is  evil  continu- 
ally. But  behold,  that  which  is  of  God,  inviteth  and  enticeth 
to  do  good  continually;  wherefore,  every  thing  which  inviteth 
and  enticeth  to  do  good,  and  to  love  God,  and  to  serve  him,  is 
inspired  of  God.  Wherefore  take  heed,  my  beloved  brethren, 
that  ye  do  not  judge  that  which  is  evil  to  be  of  God,  or  that 
which  is  good  and  of  God,  to  be  of  the  devil.  For  behold,  my 
brethren,  it  is  given  unto  you  to  judge,  that  ye  may  know  good 
from  evil;  and  the  way  to  judge  is  as  plain,  that  ye  may  know 
with  a  perfect  knowledge,  as  the  daylight  is  from  the  dark 
night.  For  behold,  the  Spirit  of  Christ  is  given  to  every  man, 
that  they  may  know  good  from  evil;  wherefore  I  shew  unto  you 
the  way  to  judge:  for  every  thing  which  inviteth  to  do  good, 
and  to  persuade  to  believe  in  Christ,  is  sent  forth  by  the  power 
and  gift  of  Christ;  wherefore  ye  may  know  with  a  perfect 
knowledge,  it  is  of  God;  but  whatsoever  thing  persuadeth  men 
to  do  evil,  and  believe  not  in  Christ,  and  deny  him,  and  serve 
not  God,  then  ye  may  know  with  a  perfect  knowledge  it  is  of 
the  devil,  for  after  this  manner  doth  the  devil  work,  for  he 
persuadeth  no  man  to  do  good,  no  not  one;  neither  doth  his 
angels;  neither  do  they  who  subject  themselves  unto  him. — 
Book  of  Mormon,  Moroni  7:2. 

Let  us  apply  the  above  test  to  some  other  items  of  the 
teaching  of  Elder  Young  and  his  colleagues.  Here  is  some- 
thing that,  had  it  been  reported  of  them  by  their  enemies, 
we  could  not  have  given  credence  to;  but  it  is  found  in 
their  own  publications: — 

All  mankind  love  themselves;  and  let  these  principles  be 
known  by  an  individual,  and  he  would  be  glad  to  have  his  blood 
shed.  That  would  be  loving  themselves  even  unto  an  eternal 
exaltation.  Will  you  love  your  brothers  and  sisters,  likewise, 
when  they  have  committed  a  sin  that  cannot  be  atoned  for  with- 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  127 

outthe  shedding  of  blood?  Will  you  love  that  man  or  woman  well 
enough  to  shed  their  blood?  That  is  what  Jesus  Christ  meant. 
He  never  told  a  man  or  woman  to  love  their  enemies  in  their 
wickedness.  He  never  intended  any  such  thing.  ...  I  have 
known  a  great  many  men  who  have  left  this  church,  for  whom 
there  is  no  chance  whatever  for  exaltation;  but  if  their  blood 
had  been  spilled,  it  would  have  been  better  for  them.  The 
wickedness  and  ignorance  of  the  nations  forbid  this  principle 
being  in  full  force;  but  the  time  will  come  when  the  law  of  God 
will  be  in  full  force. 

This  is  loving  our  neighbor  as  ourselves;  if  he  needs  help, 
help  him;  and  if  he  wants  salvation,  and  it  is  necessary  to  spill 
his  blood  upon  the  ground  in  order  that  he  may  be  saved,  spill 
it.  Any  of  you  who  understand  the  principles  of  eternity,  if 
you  have  sinned  a  sin  requiring  the  shedding  of  blood,  except 
the  sin  unto  death,  would  not  be  satisfied  nor  rest  until  your 
blood  should  be  spilled,  that  you  might  gain  that  salvation  you 
desire.  That  is  the  way  to  love  mankind. — Journal  of  Dis- 
courses, Vol.  4,  pr  220;  Deseret  News,  Vol.  6,  p.  397. 

The  above  is  the  language  of  Brigham  Young;  the  fol- 
lowing the  language  of  Jedediah  M.  Grant,  his  coun- 
selor:— 

I  say  there  are  men  and  women  here  that  I  would  advise  to 
go  to  the  president  immediately,  and  ask  him  to  appoint  a 
committee  to  attend  to  their  case;  and  then  let  a  place  be 
selected,  and  let  that  committee  shed  their  blood. — Deseret 
News,  Vol.  6,  p.  235. 

Efforts  have  been  made  of  late  years  to  explain  this  lan- 
guage away  by  making  it  appear  that  it  only  had  reference 
to  those  who  should  be  executed  for  crime  by  the  laws  of 
the  land.  If  this  is  what  Brigham  intended,  what  did  he 
mean  by  "The  wickedness  and  ignorance  of  the  nations 
forbid  this  principle  being  in  full  force,"  etc.?  Surely  he 
had  reference  to  something  which  now  the  law  of  the  land 
forbids.  What  did  Jedediah  M.  Grant  mean  by  advising 
that  certain  parties  "go  to  the  president  immediately,  and 
ask  him  to  appoint  a  committee  to  attend  to  their  case"? 

To  occupy  more  space  upon  this  point  is  unnecessary. 
The  reader  can  readily  see  that  this  language  cannot  be 
explained  away;  and  that  Messrs.  Young  and  Grant 
intended  to  justify  individuals  in  taking  the  lives  of  others, 


128  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

thus  encouraging  murder;  and  that  too  in  the  name  of  God 
and  religion.  We  do  not  wonder  that  the  advocates  of  the 
Utah  system  blush  with  shame  to  meet  this,  and  would 
gladly  close  their  eyes  to  the  purport  of  these  words  of 
their  leaders  so  full  of  darkness  and  horror.  Oh,  had  the 
keys  that  unlocked  these  things  been  lost,  in  how  much 
better  condition  would  latter-day  Israel  be  to-day!  Oh, 
tell  us  not  that  the  anointed  successor  of  Joseph  the  Seer 
should  have  been  ordained  under  such  hands,  and  by  such 
polluted  lips! 

Much  more  of  this  character  could  be  produced  from 
their  own  records,  but  we  will  invite  attention  to  but  one 
more  principle  into  which  the  people  of  Utah  were  led  by 
the  deceptive  theory  that  their  leaders  possessed  keys  to 
unlock  things  never  known  to  Joseph  or  the  written  word. 

On  August  29,  1852,  at  a  Special  Conference  held  in  Salt 
Lake  City,  Utah,  the  doctrine  of  polygamy  or  plurality  of 
wives  was  first  introduced  to  the  church  for  indorsement. 
That  it  had  been  practiced  to  some  extent  prior  to  this  is 
evident.  By  whom,  or  how  many,  is  immaterial;  for  our 
conduct  should  not  be  governed  by  the  acts  of  men,  but  by 
the  principles  of  truth.  The  existence  of  this  practice  had 
been  both  admitted  and  denied  by  those  who  were  in  a 
position  to  know,  until  it  is  very  difficult  to  locate  the 
responsibility  for  this  departure  from  the  law  of  God;  nor 
is  this  the  purpose  of  this  treatise. 

But  one  point  is  admitted  by  all;  viz.:  that  the  church 
as  a  body  was  never  asked  to  indorse  plural  marriage 
before  August  29,  1852.  The  responsibility  of  the  body 
began  with  that  date,  and  Brigham  Young  was  the  respon- 
sible party  for  its  introduction.  No  matter  who  may  or 
who  may  not  have  practiced  it  privately,  it  is  legitimate  to 
hold  Mr.  Young  responsible  for  introducing  it  to  the  pub- 
lic as  a  tenet  of  faith. 

It  is  not  our  purpose  in  this  work  to  discuss  polygamy. 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  129 

It  is  well  known  that  the  Reorganization  is  and  ever  has 
been  uncompromisingly  opposed  to  it;  and  the  ministry 
everywhere  is  well  prepared  to  meet  the  advocates  of  this 
pernicious  innovation.  We  present  it  here  as  another 
item  of  doctrine  given  to  the  church  by  these  boastful 
key  holders,  and  which  was  not  presented  to  the  church  in 
the  days  of  Joseph  Smith. 

As  evidence  of  this  we  cite  the  following  from  their  own 
men: — 

G.  Q.  Cannon,  in  a  sermon,  June  11,  1871,  Journal  of  Dis- 
courses, Vol.  14,  pp.  165,  166,  says: — 

"A  prevalent  idea  has  been  that  this  prejudice  against  us 
owes  its  origin  and  continuation  to  our  belief  in  a  plurality  of 
wives.  .  .  .  Joseph  and  Hyrum  Smith  were  slain  in  Carthage 
jail,  and  hundreds  of  persons  were  persecuted  to  death  previous 
to  the  church  having  any  knowledge  of  this  doctrine.'* 

H.  B.  Clawson  says  of  the  time  they  were  driven  from  Nau- 
voo: — 

"Polygamy  at  that  time  was  unknown  among  those  of  the 
Mormon  faith.  .  .  .  The  doctrine  of  polygamy  was  not  pro- 
mulgated until  they  got  to  Salt  Lake;  not,  in  fact,  until  some 
little  time  after  they  arrived  there."  (See  Salt  Lake  Herald, 
February  9,  1882.) 

Being  interviewed  by  United  States  Senator  Trumbull,  in 
1869,  Brigham  Young  said: — 

"As  to  our  institutions,  we  know  we  are  right,  and  polygamy, 
which  you  object  to,  was  not  originally  a  part  of  our  system, 
but  was  adopted  by  us  as  a  necessity,  after  we  came  here." — 
Alta  Californian. 

The  Deseret  News  of  December  11,  1881,  or  December  7,  1882, 
says:— 

"The  'Mormon'  church  existed  for  many  years  without 
polygamy.  Indeed,  correctly  speaking,  polygamy  is  not  now 
and  never  has  been  even  a  tenet  of  the  'Mormon'  faith." — 
"Books  and  Utah  Mormonism  in  Contrast,"  pp.  22,  33. 

We  present  further  that  the  prophecy  uttered  by  Brig- 
ham  Young  in  August,  1852,  has  utterly  failed. 
Here  is  what  he  said: — 

You  heard  Brother  Pratt  state,  this  morning,  that  a  Revela- 
tion would  be  read  this  afternoon,  which  was  given  previous  to 
Joseph's  death.  It  contains  a  doctrine,  a  small  portion  of  the 


130  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

world  is  opposed  to;  but  I  can  deliver  a  prophecy  upon  it. 
Though  that  doctrine  has  not  been  practiced  by  the  Elders, 
this  people  have  believed  in  it  for  years.  .  .  . 

The  Revelation  will  be  read  to  you.  The  principle  spoken 
upon  by  Brother  Pratt,  this  morning,  we  believe  in.  And  I 
tell  you — for  I  know  it — it  will  sail  over,  and  ride  triumphantly 
above  all  the  prejudice  and  priestcraft  of  the  day;  it  will  be 
fostered  and  believed  in  by  the  more  intelligent  portions  of  the 
world,  as  one  of  the  best  doctrines  ever  proclaimed  to  any  peo- 
ple. Your  hearts  need  not  beat;  you  need  not  think  that  a 
mob  is  coming  here  to  tread  upon  the  sacred  liberty  which  the 
Constitution  of  our  country  guarantees  unto  us,  for  it  will  not 
be.— Supplement  to  Millennial  Star,  1853  (Vol.  15),  p.  31. 

The  people  who  accepted  this  principle,  and  the  senti- 
ment expressed  above,  maintained  their  position  for  years 
as  best  they  could  against  an  overwhelming  and  ever 
increasing  conviction  and  sentiment  against  it.  Instead 
of  its  riding  "triumphantly  above  all  the  prejudice,"  etc., 
it  was  evident  from  the  first,  to  all  but  the  Brighamites, 
that  its  doom  was  sealed,  and  that  the  failure  of  those  who 
advocated  it  was  but  a  question  of  time.  Laws  were 
enacted  against  it,  men  were  fined,  imprisoned,  disfran- 
chised, and  exiled;  and  yet  they  held  out,  contending  that 
it  was  a  part  of  their  faith  and  that  they  could  not  aban- 
don it  without  renouncing  that  faith.  As  late  as  the  15th 
of  April,  1889,  Mr.  George  Teasdale,  then  as  now  one  of 
their  Twelve  Apostles,  published  editorially  the  follow- 
ing:— 

The  assault  against  the  church  is  made  on  the  line  of  the 
marriage  question  because  it  seems  to  offer  at  present  the 
greatest  prospect  for  the  success  of  hostile  effort.  The  saints 
in  general  are  less  firmly  united  on  this  principle  than  on  many 
others  belonging  to  the  gospel,  and  it  is  hoped  by  our  enemies 
that  this  circumstance  will  conduce  largely,  if  not  successfully, 
to  bring  about  its  renunciation  by  the  people  in  a  church 
capacity.  Such  an  act  would  be  tantamount  to  an  apostasy,  and 
the  consequent  destruction  of  the  power  and  authority  of  the 
priesthood  would  be  consummated.  This  is  the  great  object 
aimed  at.— Millennial* Star,  Vol  51,  pp.  232,  233. 

The  very  next  year,  1890,  President  Woodruff  issued  a 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  131 

manifesto  forbidding  the  solemnization  of  any  more  plural 
marriages.  This  was  adopted  in  "church  capacity,"  and 
so  according  to  Mr.  Teasdale  they  committed  an  act  tanta- 
mount to  apostasy  and  the  destruction  of  the  power  and 
authority  of  their  priesthood  was  consummated.  And  that 
is  the  way  it  triumphed! 

Mr.  Young  has  been  proved  a  false  prophet;  and  the 
institution  he  founded  is  tottering  to  its  fall.  In  the 
language  of  Mr.  Roberts,  "It  is  only  a  question  of  time 
with  regard  to  its  failure.  MENE,  MENE,  TEKEL,  is  written 
upon  its  walls — God  hath  numbered  thy  kingdom — weighed 
in  the  balances — found  wanting!" 

In  rejecting  the  family  which  God  has  chosen,  the  follow- 
ers of  Elder  Young  have  repeated  the  mistake  of  ancient 
Israel,  and  they  might  with  great  profit  read  and  be 
admonished  by  the  following: — 

Thus  saith  the  Lord;  If  ye  can  break  my  covenant  of  the  day, 
and  my  covenant  of  the  night,  and  that  there  should  not  be 
day  and  night  in  their  season;  then  may  also  my  covenant  be 
broken  with  David  my  servant,  that  he  should  not  have  a  son 
to  reign  upon  his  throne;  and  with  the  Levites  the  priests,  my 
ministers.  As  the  host  of  heaven  cannot  be  numbered,  neither 
the  sand  of  the  sea  measured;  so  will  I  multiply  the  seed  of 
David  my  servant,  and  the  Levites  that  minister  unto  me. 
Moreover  the  word  of  the  Lord  came  to  Jeremiah,  saying,  Con- 
siderest  thou  not  what  this  people  have  spoken,  saying;  The 
two  families  which  the  Lord  hath  chosen,  he  hath  even  cast 
them  off?  thus  they  have  despised  my  people,  that  they  should 
be  no  more  a  nation  before  them.  Thus  saith  the  Lord;  If  my 
covenant  be  not  with  day  and  night,  and  if  I  have  not  appointed 
the  ordinances  of  heaven  and  earth;  then  will  I  cast  away  the 
seed  of  Jacob,  and  David  my  servant,  so  that  I  will  not  take 
any  of  his  seed  to  be  rulers  over  the  seed  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and 
Jacob:  for  I  will  cause  their  captivity  to  return,  and  have 
mercy  on  them. — Jeremiah  33:20-26 


CHAPTER  12. 

POINTS  ESTABLISHED  —  RELEVANT  QUESTION  —  ACKNOWLEDGED 
PEOPLE  OF  GOD — AUTHORITY  TO  CHOOSE  AND  ORDAIN — TEACH- 
ING OF  JOSEPH  SMITH'S  SUCCESSOR — CONCLUSION. 

IN  the  foregoing  pages  we  have  established  the  following 
points: — 

1.  That  the  blessing  of  Joseph  Smith  the  Prophet  be- 
longs to  his  posterity,  according  to  the  law  of  lineage. 

2.  That  this  blessing  includes  the  right  to  the  keys  of  the 
kingdom. 

3.  That  these  keys  belong  always  to  the  Presidency  of 
the  High  Priesthood;  hence  the  posterity  of  Joseph  should 
preside  over  the  high  priesthood. 

4.  That  Joseph,  the  eldest  son  of  Joseph  the  Seer,  was 
blessed,  set  apart,  and  appointed  by  his  father  to  succeed 
him. 

5.  That    the  authority  to  appoint    his   successor    was 
vested  in  Joseph  Smith  by  virtue  of  the  position  he  held. 

The  only  relevant  question  remaining  to  be  solved  is 
this:  Did  Joseph  Smith,  the  son  of  the  Prophet,  pursue 
the  proper  course  in  proceeding  to  occupy  in  the  sacred 
office  to  which  he  had  been  called  and  appointed? 

1.  Were  the  people  with  whom  he  identified  himself  the 
acknowledged  people  of  God? 

2.  Did  they  have  authority  to  choose  and  ordain  him? 

3.  Has  his  subsequent  teaching  given  evidence  that  he  is 
the  true  successor  of  Joseph  Smith  his  father? 

On  the  first  question,  Were  the  people  with  whom  Tie  identi- 
fied himself  the  acknowledged  people  of  God?  We  present  as 
evidence  that  when  he  the  anointed  and  appointed  of  God 
went  humbly  to  the  Lord,  he  was  directed  to  the  "saints 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  133 

reorganizing  at  Zarahemla  and  other  places."  (See  p.  57.) 
We  invite  attention  also  to  the  position  occupied  by  that 
people;  viz. :  They  recognized  the  true  situation — that  the 
church  had  been  rejected,  and  that  a  reorganization  was 
essential;  they  took  a  position  in  harmony  with  the  law 
and  the  promises  of  God  in  regard  to  succession,  as  we 
have  clearly  shown  in  these  pages. 

Further,  they  adhered  to  the  law  of  God  as  found  in  the 
written  word,  and  were  not  led  into  abominable  and  immoral 
practices  by  the  delusive  theory  that  God  had  bestowed 
upon  men  "keys  that  the  written  word  never  spoke  of." 

The  following  is  a  part  of  their  declaration  as  adopted 
by  the  June  conference  of  1852: — 

Resolved,  that  as  the  office  of  First  President  of  the  Church 
grows  out  of  the  authority  of  the  Presiding  High  Priest  in  the 
high  priesthood,  no  person  can  legally  lay  claim  to  the  office 
of  First  President  of  the  Church,  without  a  previous  ordination 
to  the  Presidency  of  the  High  Priesthood. 

Resolved,  that  we  recognize  the  validity  of  all  legal  ordina- 
tions in  this  church,  and  will  fellowship  all  such  as  have  thus 
been  ordained,  while  acting  within  the  purview  of  such 
authority. 

Resolved,  that  we  believe  that  the  Church  of  Christ,  organ- 
ized on  the  6th  day  of  April,  A.  D.  1830,  exists  as  on  that  day 
wherever  six  or  more  saints  are  organized  according  to  the  pat- 
tern in  the  Book  of  Doctrine  and  Covenants. 

Resolved,  that  the  whole  law  of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  is 
contained  in  the  Bible,  Book  of  Mormon,  and  Book  of  Doctrine 
and  Covenants.— The  Messenger,  Vol.  2,  p.  9. 

This  last  resolution  harmonizes  with  the  law  which 
says:— 

Hearken  and  hear,  O  ye  my  people,  saith  the  Lord  and  your 
God,  ye  whom  I  delight  to  bless  with  the  greatest  blessings;  ye 
that  hear  me:  and  ye  that  hear  me  not  will  I  curse,  that  have 
professed  my  name,  with  the  heaviest  of  all  cursings.  Hearken, 
O  ye  elders  of  .my  church  whom  I  have  called:  behold,  1  give 
unto  you  a  commandment,  that  ye  shall  assemble  yourselves 
together  to  agree  upon  my  word,  and  by  the  prayer  of  your 
faith  ye  shall  receive  my  law,  that  ye  may  know  how  to  govern 
my  church,  and  have  all  things  right  before  me. 

And  I  will  be  your  Ruler  when  I  come;  and,  behold,  I  come 


134  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

quickly;  and  ye  shall  see  that  my  law  is  kept.  He  that  receiv- 
eth  my  law  and  doeth  it  the  same  is  my  disciple;  and  he  that 
saith  he  receiveth  it  and  doeth  it  not,  the  same  is  not  my  disci- 
ple, and  shall  be  cast  out  from  among  you;  for  it  is  not  meet 
that  the  things  which  belong  to  the  children  of  the  kingdom, 
should  be  given  to  them  that  are  not  worthy,  or  to  dogs,  or  the 
pearls  to  be  cast  before  swine. 

.  .  .  These  words  are  given  unto  you,  and  they  are  pure 
before  me;  wherefore,  beware  how  you  hold  them,  for  they  are 
to  be  answered  upon  your  souls  in  the  day  of  judgment.  Even 
so.  Amen.— D.  C.  41:  1,  2,  3. 

Section  42  indicates  that  they  had  assembled  together 
and  that  the  promised  law  by  which  they  were  "to  govern 
my  church  and  have  all  things  right  before  me  [God]," 
was  to  be  given  them. 

A  part  of  that  law  reads  as  follows: — 

And  again,  the  elders,  priests,  and  teachers  of  this  church 
shall  teach  the  principles  of  my  gospel  which  are  in  the  Bible 
and  the  Book  of  Mormon,  in  the  which  is  the  fullness  of  the 
gospel;  and  they  shall  observe  the  covenants  and  church  arti- 
cles to  do  them,  and  these  shall  be  their  teachings,  as  they  shall 
be  directed  by  the  Spirit;  and  the  Spirit  shall  be  given  unto 
you  by  the  prayer  of  faith,  and  if  ye  receive  not  the  Spirit  ye 
shall  not  teach.  And  all  this  ye  shall  observe  to  do  as  I  have 
commanded  concerning  your  teaching,  until  the  fullness  of  my 
scriptures  are  given.  And  as  ye  shall  lift  up  your  voices  by  the 
Comforter,  ye  shall  speak  and  prophesy  as  seemeth  me  good; 
for,  behold,  the  Comforter  knoweth  all  things,  and  beareth  rec- 
ord of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son.— D.  C.  42:5. 

To  this  the  Reorganization  committed  itself.  The  Utah 
people  were  induced  by  their  leaders  to  adopt  strange  and 
questionable  things  not  taught  by  Joseph  nor  found  in  the 
written  word,  under  the  delusive  impression  that  their 
boasted  keyholders  were  unlocking  the  treasure-house  and 
handing  out  celestial  gems. 

Again,  the  instruction  given  to  Jason  W.  Briggs  on 
November  18,  1851,  which  was  one  of  the  influences  leading 
to  the  Reorganization,  was  in  harmony  with  the  foregoing. 
The  following  is  an  extract  therefrom: — 

Therefore,  let  the  Elders  whom  I  have  ordained  by  the  hand 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  135 

of  my  servant  Joseph,  or  by  the  hand  of  those  ordained  by  him, 
resist  not  this  authority,  nor  faint  in  the  discharge  of  duty, 
which  is  to  preach  my  gospel  as  revealed  in  the  record  of  the 
Jews,  and  the  Book  of  Mormon,  and  the  Book  of  Doctrine  and 
and  Covenants;  and  cry  repentance  and  remission  of  sins 
through  obedience  to  the  gospel,  and  I  will  sustain  them,  and 
give  them  my  Spirit;  and  in  mine  own  due  time  will  I  call 
upon  the  seed  of  Joseph  Smith,  and  will  bring  one  forth,  and  he 
shall  be  mighty  and  strong,  and  he  shall  preside  over  the  high 
priesthood  of  my  church;  and  then  shall  the  quorums  assemble, 
and  the  pure  in  heart  shall  gather,  and  Zion  shall  be  reinhab- 
ited,  as  I  said  unto  my  servant  Joseph  Smith; — after  many  days 
shall  all  these  things  be  accomplished,  saith  the  Spirit. — The 
Messenger,  Vol.  2,  p.  1. 

This  leads  us  to  something  else.  The  reinhabiting  of 
Zion  and  the  words  of  the  Lord  to  Joseph  Smith  in  connec- 
tion therewith  are  referred  to — "After  many  days  shall  all 
these  things  be  accomplished."  Where  in  the  revelations 
to  Joseph  Smith  do  we  find  this  sentiment?  In  a  revela- 
tion given  December,  1833. 

It  is  important.     We  quote  as  follows: — 

And  now,  I  will  show  unto  you  a  parable  that  you  may  know 
my  will  concerning  the  redemption  of  Zion.  A  certain  noble- 
man had  a  spot  of  land,  very  choice;  and  he  said  unto  his  serv- 
ants, Go  ye  into  my  vineyard,  even  upon  this  very  choice  piece 
of  land,  and  plant  twelve  olive  trees;  and  set  watchmen 
round  about  them  and  build  a  tower,  that  one  may  overlook 
the  land  round  about,  to  be  a  watchman  upon  the  tower;  that 
mine  olive  trees  may  not  be  broken  down,  when  the  enemy 
shall  come  to  spoil  and  take  unto  themselves  the  fruit  of  my 
vineyard.  Now  the  servants  of  the  nobleman  went  and  did  as 
their  lord  commanded  them;  and  planted  the  olive  trees,  and 
built  a  hedge  round  about,  and  set  watchmen,  and  began  to 
build  a  tower.  And  while  they  were  yet  laying  the  foundation 
thereof,  they  began  to  say  among  themselves,  And  what  need 
hath  my  lord  of  this  tower?  and  consulted  for  a  long  time,  say- 
ing among  themselves,  What  need  hath  my  lord  of  this  tower, 
seeing  this  is  a  time  of  peace?  Might  not  this  money  be  given 
to  the  exchangers?  for  there  is  no  need  of  these  things!  And 
while  they  were  at  variance  one  with  another  they  became  very 
slothful,  and  they  hearkened  not  unto  the  commandments  of 
their  lord,  and  the  enemy  came  by  night  and  broke  down  the 
hedge,  and  the  servants  of  the  nobleman  arose,  and  were 
affrighted,  and  fled;  and  the  enemy  destroyed  their  works  and 
broke  down  the  olive  trees. 


136  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

Now,  behold,  the  nobleman,  the  lord  of  the  vineyard,  called 
upon  his  servants,  and  said  unto  them,  Why!  what  is  the  cause 
of  this  great  evil?  ought  ye  not  to  have  done  even  as  I  com- 
manded you?  and  after  ye  had  planted  the  vineyard,  and  built 
the  hedge  round  about,  and  set  watchmen  upon  the  walls 
thereof,  built  the  tower  also,  and  set  a  watchman  upon  the 
tower,  and  watched  for  my  vineyard,  and  not  have  fallen 
asleep,  lest  the  enemy  should  come  upon  you?  and,  behold,  the 
watchman  upon  the  tower  would  have  seen  the  enemy  while  he 
was  yet  afar  off,  and  then  you  could  have  made  ready  and  kept 
the  enemy  from  breaking  down  the  hedge  thereof,  and  saved 
my  vineyard  from  the  hands  of  the  destroyer.  And  the  lord  of 
the  vineyard  said  unto  one  of  his  servants,  Go  and  gather 
together  the  residue  of  my  servants;  and  take  all  the  strength 
of  mine  house,  which  are  my  warriors,  my  young  men,  and 
they  that  are  of  middle  age  also,  among  all  my  servants,  who 
are  the  strength  of  mine  house,  save  those  only  whom  I  have 
appointed  to  tarry;  and  go  ye  straightway  unto  the  land  of  my 
vineyard,  and  redeem  my  vineyard,  for  it  is  mine,  I  have 
bought  it  with  money.  Therefore,  get  ye  straightway  unto  my 
land;  break  down  the  walls  of  mine  enemies,  throw  down  their 
tower,  and  scatter  their  watchmen;  and  inasmuch  as  they 
gather  together  against  you,  avenge  me  of  mine  enemies;  that 
by  and  by  I  may  come  with  the  residue  of  mine  house  and 
possess  the  land. 

And  the  servant  said  unto  his  lord,  When  shall  these  things 
be?  And  he  said  unto  his  servant,  When  I  will:  go  ye  straight- 
way: and  do  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you;  and 
this  shall  be  my  seal  and  blessing  upon  you;  a  faithful  and  wise 
steward  in  the  midst  of  mine  house;  a  ruler  in  my  kingdom. 
And  his  servant  went  straightway,  and  did  all  things  whatso- 
ever his  lord  commanded  him,  and  after  many  days  all  things 
were  fulfilled.— Doc.  and  Cov.  98:  6-8. 


Without  occupying  space  to  discuss  all  the  minor  points 
in  the  above  parable  we  invite  attention  to  the  following 
leading  points: — 

1.  The  subject  of  the  parable  is  the  redemption  of  Zion. 

2.  The  servants  of   the  nobleman   (the  people  of  God) 
were  to  be  directed  to  occupy  a  choice  piece  of  land. 

3.  They  were  to  do  as  they  were  commanded. 

4.  While  they  were  yet  laying  the  foundation  they  were 
to  get  at  variance  one  with  another  and  become  slothful. 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  137 

5.  As  a  result  of  this  unfaithfulness  their  enemies  were 
to  come  upon  them  and  destroy  their  works. 

6.  They  were  to  become  affrighted  and  flee. 

7.  The  nobleman  (G-od)  was  to  remonstrate  with  them 
for  their  unfaithfulness  and  to  hold  them  responsible  for 
allowing  his  vineyard  to  be  destroyed. 

8.  Then  he  was  to  call  upon  one  of  his  servants  to  gather 
together  the  residue  of  his  servants  (not  the  body  which  had 
fled). 

9.  This  servant  at  the  head  of  this  residue  was  to  go 
straightway  into  the  vineyard  and  redeem  it,  break  down 
the  walls  of  the  enemy,  throw  down  their  tower,  scatter 
their  watchmen,  etc. 

10.  This    servant    was    to  inquire  when  these  things 
should  be,  but  was  simply  to  be  told,  "When  I  will." 

11.  He  was  told  that  if  he  performed  his  part  he  should 
be  a  faithful  and  wise  steward  and  a  ruler  in  the  kingdom. 

12.  He  was  to  do  whatsoever  he  was  commanded  and 
after  many  days  all  things  (concerning  the  redemption  of 
Zion)  were  to  be  fulfilled. 

The  revelation  to  Elder  Briggs  connects  this  latter  point 
with  the  work  of  the  Reorganization. 

We  are  aware  that  it  has  been  understood  that  this  reve- 
lation of  December,  1833,  applied  to  the  work  of  "Zion's 
Camp"  which  went  up  the  next  year  to  Missouri  to  relieve 
their  brethren.  That  the  participants  in  that  movement 
should  hope  and  expect  to  fulfill  it,  is  quite  natural;  and 
that  it  may  in  a  sense  have  had  reference  to  that  move- 
ment, we  admit.  But  it  did  not  have  a  complete  fulfill- 
ment then.  The  Camp  of  Zion  was  not  composed  of  the 
residue  left  after  the  church  fled  from  Jackson  County,  in 
1833.  Zion's  Camp  did  not  scatter  the  enemy,  but  were 
themselves  disbanded  ere  they  reached  the  land  whence 
their  brethren  had  been  driven.  However,  there  came  a 
time,  as  has  been  made  apparent  in  the  preceding  pages, 


138  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

when  the  church  became  slothful  and  failed  to  do  the  work 
commanded  within  the  time  appointed;  when  their  enemies 
came  upon  them  and  they  became  affrighted  and  fled,  not 
simply  to  another  part  of  the  choice  vineyard,  as  in  the 
case  of  former  moves,  but  entirely  outside  of  the  appointed 
Zion.  Since  the  body  has  fled,  one  of  God's  servants  has 
been  sent  to  gather  together  the  "residue,"  or  remnants 
left  behind;  and  they  have  gone  straightway  into  the 
waste  places  of  Zion  and  are  redeeming  them;  are  breaking 
down  the  wall,  throwing  down  the  tower,  and  scattering 
the  watchmen  of  the  enemy;  not  by  use  of  carnal  weapons, 
but  by  fearlessly  defending  the  faith  against  opposition; 
by  consistent  honorable  lives,  and  square  dealing;  and  by 
adhering  to  "the  code  of  good  morals,"  taught  in  the  Bible, 
the  Book  of  Mormon,  and  the  Doctrine  and  Covenants,  and 
to  which  President  Smith  pledged  himself  on  that  memora- 
ble April  day  of  1860. 

This  has  disarmed  the  enemy,  and  the  Reorganization  is 
realizing,  in  a  measure,  the  fulfillment  of  the  promise  that 
the  church  should  find  "favor  and  grace"  in  the  eyes  of  the 
people.  (See  pp.  99,  100.) 

Mark  it  well,  this  servant  who  was  to  be  sent  to  lead 
this  movement  was  not  only  to  be  "a  faithful  and  wise 
steward"  in  the  midst  of  God's  house,  but  he  was  to  be  "a 
ruler  in  my  [God's]  kingdom." 

In  this  connection  observe  the  fitness  of  the  following 
words  of  this  servant  of  God  as  he  called  upon  Latter  Day 
Israel  to  renew  their  allegiance: — 

In  the  name  of  the  God  of  Abraham,  of  Isaac,  and  of  Jacob,  I 
now  call  upon  all  the  scattered  saints,  upon  all  the  broad  earth, 
to  arise  and  shake  off  the  sleep  that  hath  bound  them  these  many 
years,  take  on  the  armor  of  the  just,  calling  on  the  name  of  the 
Lord  for  help,  and  unite  once  more  for  the  emancipation  of  the 
honest  in  heart  from  the  power  of  false  doctrines  and  the 
shackles  of  sin. 

In  the  name  of  bleeding  Zion,  I  call  upon  all  those  who  have 
been  wandering  in  by  and  forbidden  paths,  and  have  been  led 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  139 

astray  by  wicked  and  designing  men,  to  turn  from  their  scenes 
of  wickedness  and  sins  of  convenience — to  turn  from  their 
servitude  to  Satan,  in  all  his  seductive  devices;  from  vice  in 
every  phase,  and  from  the  labor  of  sin,  the  wages  whereof  are 
ever  death — unto  their  true  and  delightsome  allegiance  to  the 
principles  of  the  gospel  of  peace — to  the  paths  of  wisdom — to 
the  homage  of  that  God  that  brought  the  children  of  Israel  out 
of  bondage;  to  turn  and  remember  the  new  covenant,  even  the 
Book  of  Mormon;  to  lay  hold  anew  upon  the  rod  of  iron  which 
surely  leads  to  the  tree  of  life;  to  remember  that  those  who  live 
to  the  Lord  keep  his  commandments,  and  that  the  promises  are 
unto  the  faithful,  and  the  reward  unto  those  that  endure  unto 
the  end. 

And  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  of  Hosts,  I  call  upon  all  the 
inhabitants  of  the  earth  to  repent,  believe  and  be  baptized,  for 
the  time  cometh  when  the  judgments  of  God  are  to  be  poured 
out  upon  all  nations,  and  the  besom  of  God's  wrath  shall  smoke 
through  the  land;  when  men  shall  know  that  there  is  a  God  in 
Israel,  and  he  is  mighty  to  punish  or  to  save;  that  the  prayers 
of  those  under  the  altar  have  been  heard,  and  a  swift  retribu- 
tion is  to  come,  when  the  despoiler  will  be  despoiled;  when 
those  who  denied  justice  shall  be  judged,  and  the  measure 
meted  unto  others  shall  be  meted  unto  them;  when  the  pris- 
oner shall  go  free,  the  oppressed  be  redeemed,  and  all  Israel 
shall  cry,  "Glory  to  God  in  the  highest  be  given,  for  he  that  is 
longsuffering  and  slow  to  anger,  has  arisen,  and  shall  bring 
again  Zion."  Amen  and  amen. 

JOSEPH  SMITH,  President, 
Of  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints. 

NAUVOO,  Illinois,  July  19, 1861. 

—Saints'  Herald,  Vol.  2,  pp.  123,  124. 

As  further  evidence  that  God  has  accepted  the  Reorgani- 
zation, we  invite  attention  to  God's  promise  concerning 
the  Holy  Scriptures  as  translated  and  corrected  by  Joseph 
Smith  the  Prophet. 

Thou  shalt  ask,  and  my  scriptures  shall  be  given  as  I  have 
appointed,  and  they  shall  be  preserved  in  safety;  and  it  is  expe- 
dient that  thou  shouldst  hold  thy  peace  concerning  them,  and 
not  teach  them  until  ye  have  received  them  in  full.  And  I 
give  unto  you  a  commandment,  that  then  ye  shall  teach  them 
unto  all  men;  for  they  shall  be  taught  unto  all  nations,  kin- 
dreds, tongues,  and  people. — D.  C.  42:  15. 

The  manuscript  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  was  carefully 
preserved  in  the  hands  of  Emma  Smith,  whom  the  Brig- 


140  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

hamites  brand  as  an  apostate,  and  was  by  her  delivered 
into  the  hands  of  the  Reorganization,  whose  exclusive 
property  it  is  to-day.  Then  according  to  God's  decree  the 
place  of  safety  for  that  which  he  would  preserve  is  with  the 
Reorganized  Church,  and  not  with  the  church  in  Utah. 

Then  indeed  were  the  people  with  whom  the  son  of  the 
Prophet  identified  himself  the  acknowledged  people  of 
God. 

Second:     Did  they  have  authority  to  choose  and  ordain  him? 

So  far  as  the  choosing  is  concerned,  the  foregoing 
evidence  that  this  people  were  accepted  of  God  as  his 
church,  is  sufficient;  but  on  the  subject  of  ordination, 
and  the  question  as  to  whether  there  was  authority  among 
those  composing  the  Reorganization  to  ordain,  we  offer  a 
few  observations. 

We  agree  with  Mr.  Roberts  that  an  ordination  was 
necessary.  Then  to  whom  should  this  man,  called  and 
appointed  of  God,  go  to  receive  his  ordination?  To  a 
rebaptized,  a  reordained  apostleship?  To  men  who 
claimed  to  lead  the  church  by  virtue  of  "keys  that  the 
written  word  never  spoke  of,  nor  never  will"  ?  To  men  who 
were  led  by  such  keys  into  the  idolatrous  doctrine  of  wor- 
shiping Adam  as  God,  and  denying  the  Scriptures  concern- 
ing the  birth  of  Jesus  Christ?  To  men  who  taught  the 
repudiation  of  honest  debts,  justified  and  advised  murder, 
and  taught  that  the  priesthood  of  God  gave  power  to  men 
to  become  expert  thieves,  gamblers,  and  rogues?  To  men 
who  had  themselves  usurped  the  authority  to  preside  with- 
out an  ordination  of  any  kind  to  that  position?  To  men 
who  by  deceit  and  fraud  had  fastened  the  practice  of 
polygamy  upon  the  credulous?  To  men  who  were  the  ac- 
knowledged representatives  of  a  rejected  and  covenant 
breaking  people?  O  no!  certainly  not.  God  would  not 
send  his  chosen  prophet  to  receive  ordination  from  such 
a  source. 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  141 

Then  to  whom  should  he  go?  When,  because  of  apos- 
tasy and  spiritual  darkness,  God  had  rejected  the  once 
Christian  Church,  and  he  desired  to  again  establish  his 
church  on  earth,  he  gave  direction  how  to  organize,  and 
provided  among  other  things  for  the  selection  of  a  Quorum 
of  Twelve  Apostles.  What  provision  did  he  make  for  this? 
A  committee  was  appointed  by  revelation,  consisting  of 
Oliver  Cowdery  and  David  Whitmer  (D.  C.  16:  6),  to  which 
Martin  Harris  was  subsequently  added,  and  to  them  the 
Lord  gave  authority  to  select  the  Twelve  according  to 
specific  instruction  given.  In  1835  the  Twelve  were 
selected  by  these  men.  Neither  of  the  three,  though  they 
were  in  a  general  sense  Apostles,  were  ever  members  of  the 
Quorum  of  Twelve;  and  though  they  did  not  then  nor 
thereafter  hold  any  office  equal  to  it,  yet  they  ordained 
these  men  Apostles  of  the  Quorum  of  Twelve  and  gave 
them  their  charge. 

To  this  Quorum  of  Twelve  thus  chosen  and  ordained  God 
delegated  the  authority  "to  ordain  and  set  in  order  all  the 
other  officers  of  the  church."  (D.  C.  104:  30.) 

When  the  quorum  thus  appointed  so  far  departed  from 
the  law  of  God  as  to  suffer  themselves  to  be  rebaptized  and 
reordained  by  one  who  was  openly  acting  by  the  authority 
of  "keys  that  the  written  word  never  spoke  of,  nor  never 
will,"  and  by  the  authority  and  dictation  of  this  same  man 
were  led  into  the  abominations  we  have  referred  to,  thus 
proving  themselves  unworthy  to  act  in  the  sacred  office  to 
which  they  had  been  previously  called, — when  they  no 
longer  represented  a  people  governed  by  the  word  of  God, 
but  a  rejected  and  covenant-breaking  people, — how  would 
we  expect  God  to  renew  the  apostolic  authority,  how  reor- 
ganize the  apostolic  quorum,  and  restore  the  authority  to 
ordain  and  set  in  order?  We  would,  of  course,  expect  him 
to  be  consistent  with  himself,  and  another  quorum  would 
be  chosen  in  like  manner  as  the  first  was  chosen. 


142  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

In  this  the  instruction  given  to  the  Reorganization  was 
consistent.  It  was  as  follows: — 

Verily,  thus  saith  the  Lord,  as  I  said  unto  my  servant  Moses, 
see  thou  do  all  things  according  to  the  pattern,  so  say  I  unto 
you.  Behold  the  pattern  is  before  you.  It  is  my  will  that  you 
respect  authority  in  my  church;  therefore  let  the  greatest 
among  you  preside  at  your  conference.  Let  three  men  be 
appointed  by  the  conference  to  select  seven  men  from  among 
you,  who  shall  compose  a  majority  of  the  twelve  apostles;  for 
it  is  my  will  that  that  quorum  should  not  be  filled  up  at  pres- 
ent.— The  Messenger,  Vol.  2,  p.  21. 

Members  of  this  quorum  were  chosen  exactly  as  were 
the  quorum  installed  in  1835,  and  were  ordained  by  those 
holding  authority  in  the  days  of  Joseph  Smith,  and  who 
occupied  positions  in  the  priesthood  as  high  as  did  Oliver 
Cowdery,  David  Whitmer,  or  Martin  Harris.  Men  from 
this  quorum  thus  chosen  and  ordained  according  to  the 
pattern,  officiated  at  the  ordination  of  President  Joseph 
Smith  in  April,  1860. 

No  wonder  that  Mr.  Roberts  could  find  no  valid  objec- 
tion to  this  authority,  but  could  only  say  in  a  bombastic 
manner: — 

Now,  I  affirm  that  among  all  those  seven  men  who  were 
"called"  to  form  the  majority  of  the  quorum  of  the  twelve,  in 
the  "Reorganization"  not  one  of  them  held  the  apostleship; 
that  they  could  not  give  what  they  did  not  possess;  that  there- 
fore neither  the  seven  men  called  to  be  apostles,  in  April,  1853, 
received  the  apostleship,  nor  any  whom  they  subsequently 
ordained.— Roberts,  p.  77. 

Then,  as  if  to  make  assurance  doubly  sure,  Elder  William 
Marks  who  was  President  of  the  High  Council  at  the  seat 
of  the  Presidency,  and  President  of  the  Nauvoo  stake  at 
the  time  of  Joseph's  death,  and  whom  the  Lord  had  said  he 
would  raise  up  as  a  "blessing  unto  many  people"  (see 
p.  84),  assisted  in  that  ordination. 

In  this  connection  it  will  be  well  to  remember  that  Wil- 
liam Marks  as  a  high  priest  held  the  same  authority  that 
was  held  by  those  who  ordained  Joseph  the  Martyr  as 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  143 

• 

President  of  the  High  Priesthood,  as  the  following  will 
show: — 

"On  the  26th  I  called  a  general  council  of  the  church,  and 
was  acknowledged  as  the  president  of  the  high  priesthood, 
according  to  a  previous  ordination  at  a  conference  of  high 
priests,  elders,  and  members,  held  at  Amherst,  Ohio,  on  the 
twenty-fifth  of  January,  1832.  The  right  hand  of  fellowship 
was  given  to  me  by  the  bishop,  Edward  Partridge,  in  behalf  of 
the  church.  The  scene  was  solemn,  impressive,  and  delightful. 
During  the  intermission,  a  difficulty  or  hardness  which  had 
existed  between  Bishop  Partridge  and  Elder  Rigdon  was  amica- 
bly settled,  and  when  we  came  together  in  the  afternoon,  all 
hearts  seemed  to  rejoice." — Church  History,  Vol.  1,  p.  244; 
Times  and  Seasons,  Vol.  5,  p.  624. 

This  was  before  there  was  a  Quorum  of  Twelve  Apostles. 

Thus  does  it  appear  that  President  Joseph  Smith  and 
his  father  were  ordained  by  the  same  authority;  viz.:  by 
those  holding  the  office  of  high  priest;  and  in  addition  to 
this,  President  Smith's  ordination  was  participated  in  by 
those  who  were  regularly  called  and  ordained  to  the  office 
of  apostle. 

Notwithstanding  all  this,  Messrs.  Roberts,  Penrose,  and 
their  associates  will  scoff  at  the  authority  of  this  ordina- 
tion; while  they  indorse  the  presidency  of  Brigham  Young, 
John  Taylor,  Wilford  Woodruff,  and  Lorenzo  Snow,  not 
one  of  whom  have  ever  claimed  an  ordination  of  any  kind 
or  by  any  authority  to  the  office  of  President  of  the  High 
Priesthood. 

"O  consistency  thou  art  a  jewel;"  but  thy  home  is  not 
in  Utah. 

In  answer  to  this  conclusive  presentation  of  the  case 
they  can  only  call  William  Marks  hard  names,  and  affirm 
that  the  apostles  of  the  Reorganization  had  no  authority. 

While  there  are  general  rules  for  the  church  to  be  gov- 
erned by,  yet  so  far  as  authority  is  concerned,  the  com- 
mand of  God  is  authority  for  anything.  By  virtue  of  his 
command  authority  is  bestowed;  yet  we  expect  him  to  act 


144  TRUE  SUCCESSION   IN 

% 

consistently  with  himself,  as  in  the  selection  of  the  Quo- 
rum of  Twelve  in  1835,  and  in  the  Reorganization. 

But  our  friends  say  that  the  lesser  ordaining  the  greater 
is  "contrary  to  the  order  and  contrary  to  nature — a 
stream  cannot  rise  above  its  source." 

If  their  reasoning  was  good  it  would  condemn  the  apos- 
tolic ordinations  performed  in  1835;  the  ordination  of 
Joseph  the  Martyr  by  high  priests  in  1832;  and,  strange  to 
say,  that  what  they  condemn  they  ask  "young  Joseph"  to 
accept,  claiming  that  he  should 'have  had  his  ordination  to 
a  position  in  the  first  quorum  (the  First  Presidency)  under 
the  hands  of  those  whom  they  claim  retained  their  au- 
thority as  members  of  the  second  quorum  (the  Twelve). 

That  a  stream  cannot  rise  above  its  fountain  or  source, 
is  true;  but  it  is  also  true  that  a  stream  cannot  sink  so  low 
that  it  may  not  rise  again  to  any  height  not  exceeding  that 
of  its  source.  Those  who  employ  this  analogy  and  com- 
pare the  priesthood  to  a  stream  of  water,  make  the  mis- 
take of  locating  the  source  of  the  stream  of  priesthood  in 
the  man  who  ordains,  or  in  the  office  that  he  holds. 

This  is  manifestly  wrong.  The  source  of  the  priesthood 
is  in  God;  and  so  long  as  the  source  retains  its  strength, 
though  the  stream  may  flow  through  lower  channels  at 
times,  such  stream  may  rise  to  any  height  not  exceeding 
that  of  its  source — God  himself.  The  danger  lies  not  in 
the  channel  being  low,  but  in  its  becoming  unclean  and 
unworthy  to  contain  the  pure  waters  of  life.  In  such  a 
case  the  Intelligent  Source  of  the  stream  of  priesthood 
would  withdraw  the  waters  and  leave  the  channel  dry,  or 
but  a  refuge  for  filth  and  uncleanness. 

The  language  of  Joseph  Smith  and  his  companions  in 
bonds,  written  from  Liberty  Jail,  Missouri,  in  1839,  is  sig- 
nificant, and  in  this  connection  we  commend  their  words 
to  careful  consideration: — 
There  are  many  called  but  few  are  chosen,  and  why  are  they 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  145 

not  chosen?  Because  their  hearts  are  set  upon  the  things  of 
the  world,  and  are  aspiring  to  the  honors  of  men;  they  do  not 
learn  the  lesson  that  the  rights  of  the  priesthood  are  insepara- 
bly connected  with  the  powers  of  heaven;  and  that  the  powers 
of  heaven  cannot  be  controlled  nor  handled,  only  upon  the 
principles  of  righteousness.  That  they  may  be  conferred  upon 
us,  it  is  true;  but  when  we  undertake  to  cover  our  sins,  to 
gratify  our  pride,  vain  ambition,  or  to  exercise  dominion  or 
compulsion  over  the  souls  of  the  children  of  men,  in  any  degree 
of  unrighteousness;  behold  the  heavens  withdraw  themselves, 
the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is  grieved,  then  amen  to  the  priesthood, 
or  to  the  authority  of  that  man;  behold  ere  he  is  aware,  he  is 
left  to  kick  against  the  pricks;  to  persecute  the  saints,  and  to 
fight  against  God.— Times  and  Seasons,  Vol.  1,  pp.  131,  132. 

This  is  a  serious  consideration.  Too  often  men  have 
been  lifted  up  in  pride  and  boasted  of  their  high  preroga- 
tives, while  they  have  paid  too  little  attention  to  purity  of 
life  and  meekness  of  spirit.  That  is  indeed  a  sad  condition 
of  things  when  men  high  in  authority  use  that  authority  as 
a  license  for  uncleanness,  or  as  a  cloak  to  cover  corruption. 
And  when  men  boast  of  acting  by  virtue  of  keys  or 
authority  that  the  "written  word  never  spoke  of,  nor 
never  will,"  they  are  like  a  vessel  at  sea  without  a  rudder; 
they  will  drift  upon  the  rocks  and  be  wrecked.  Adam- 
God,  blood  atonement,  polygamy,  and  other  theories  and 
crimes,  fostered  and  encouraged  by  Brigham  Young  and 
others,  are  but  the  legitimate  results  of  this  peculiar  key 
doctrine,  and  of  considering  the  office  a  man  holds  of  more 
importance  than  the  purity  and  righteousness  of  his  life. 

Christ  in  his  extreme  trial  appealed  to  what  was  written. 
Should  his  servants  fail  to  <Jo  so,  they  will  not  represent 
him,  but  misrepresent  him. 

Those  who  use  the  stream  as  illustrative  of  the  priest- 
hood in  the  manner  referred  to  above  have  not  considered 
it.  We  doubt  if  there  could  be  found  a  man,  even  in  Utah, 
who  would  claim  that  the  fountain  of  the  priesthood  was  in 
the  man  who  ordains,  or  in  the  office  he  holds.  If  there 
should  be  such  an  one,  he  has  obtained  his  information  by 


146  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

the  use  of  "keys  that  the  written  word  never  spoke  of,  nor 
never  will. " 

Those  who  will  examine  the  subject  carefully  wi!l,  we 
are  sure,  be  able  to  discern  that  no  man-  is  this  dispensa- 
tion has  been  ordained  by  authority  more  defensible  than 
was  Joseph  Smith,  the  son  of  the  Prophet.  By  virtue  of 
birthright;  by  virtue  of  calling,  blessing,  and  appoint- 
ment; by  virtue  of  being  chosen  by  the  Church  of  God;  by 
virtue  of  a  regular  and  authoritative  ordination,  he  is  Presi- 
dent of  the  High  Priesthood  and  of  the  Church  of  Jesus 
Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints. 

Third:  Has  his  subsequent  teaching  given  evidence  that  he  is 
the  true  successor  of  Joseph  Smith,  his  father  f 

An  appeal  to  the  revelations  of  God  will  settle  this 
point.  The  Lord  as  early  as  February,  1831,  informed  the 
church  what  the  work  of  the  successor  of  Joseph  Smith 
would  be.  He  says: — 

But  verily,  verily  I  say  unto  you,  that  none  else  shall  be 
appointed  unto  this  gift  except  it  be  through  him,  for  if  it  be 
taken  from  him  he  shall  not  have  power,  except  to  appoint 
another  in  his  stead;  and  this  shall  be  a  law  unto  you,  that  ye 
receive  not  the  teachings  of  any  that  shall  come  before  you  as 
revelations,  or  commandments;  and  this  I  give  unto  you,  that 
you  may  not  be  deceived,  that  you  may  know  they  are  not  of 
me.  For  verily  I  say  unto  you,  that  he  that  is  ordained  of  me, 
shall  come  in  at  the  gate  and  be  ordained  as  I  have  told  you 
before,  to  teach  those  revelations  which  you  have  received,  and 
shall  receive  through  him  whom  I  have  appointed. — Doc.  and 
Cov.  43:  2. 

This  suggests  that  there  would  be  danger  of  being 
deceived  by  purported  revelations  that  would  be  presented 
after  the  removal  of  Joseph  Smith,  and  the  Lord  gives  a 
key  whereby  they  could  be  detected  and  by  which  the 
church  could  know  they  were  not  of  him.  The  test  was 
this:  that  the  one  chosen  of  God  to  succeed  Joseph  was  to 
come  in  at  the  gate,  be  ordained  according  to  God's 
instruction,  and  he  was  "to  teach  those  revelations  which 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  14? 

you  have  received,  and  shall  receive"  etc.  Then  the  revela- 
tions that  were  to  be  received  after  this  one  must  agree  with 
those  that  had  been  received  before,  or  the  successor  of 
Joseph  Smith  could  not  teach  both.  The  church  was 
warned  to  "receive  not  the  teachings  of  any  that  shall 
come  before  you  as  revelations,  or  commandments;  and 
this  I  give  unto  you,  that  you  may  not  be  deceived,  that 
you  may  know  they  are  not  of  me."  If  any  reliance  can  be 
placed  in  this  language,  then  can  we  know  that  the  revela- 
tion introduced  in  August,  1852,  was  not  of  God,  and  that 
the  teachings  of  those  who  then  came  before  the  church 
with  revelations  and  commandments  were  not  to  be 
received.  The  son  of  the  Prophet  should  not  be  blamed 
for  rejecting  the  doctrine  of  plurality  of  wives,  for  one  of 
the  conditions  of  his  appointment  was  that  he  was  to  teach 
the  former  and  the  latter  revelations.  He  could  not  accept 
polygamy  and  still  teach:  "Thou  shalt  love  thy  wife  with 
all  thy  heart,  and  shall  cleave  unto  her  and  none  else," 
etc.  (D.  C.  42:  7);  "There  shall  not  any  man  among  you 
have  save  it  be  one  wife:  and  concubines  he  shall  have 
none,"  etc.  (Book  of  Mormon,  Jacob  2:  6.) 

Others  may  feel  at  liberty  to  believe  and  advocate  that 
God  has  abrogated  this  law  and  commanded  a  departure 
from  it,  but  the  successor  of  Joseph  Smith  cannot.  Upon 
him  the  obligation  is  laid  "to  teach  those  revelations  which 
you  have  received  [before  the  one  contained  in  Doctrine  and 
Covenants  section  43]  and  shall  receive." 

The  son  of  the  Prophet  took  the  only  course  open  to  him, 
as  his  father's  successor,  in  rejecting  that  which  was 
opposed  to  the  former  commandments.  Not  only  is  this 
true  regarding  polygamy,  but  on  all  points  of  doctrine  and 
church  government  he  has  appealed  for  authority  to  the 
revelations  of  God,  in  harmony  with  the  cojnmandment 
which  says:  "And  these  shall  be  their  teachings,  as  they 
shall  be  directed  by  the  Spirit."  (D.  C.  42:  5.) 


148  .         TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

Then  his  teaching  has  given  evidence  that  he  is  the  true 
successor  of  Joseph  Smith,  his  father. 

Our  task  is  done.  This  treatise  is  not  an  exhaustive 
one,  for  much  more  might'  be  said  upon  the  several  points 
treated  upon.  We  have  been  especially  moderate  in  quot- 
ing the  abominable  teachings  of  the  Utah  authorities,  hav- 
ing chosen  but  few  of  the  many  passages  so  shocking  to 
the  moral  sense  of  honest  people,  and  relating  none  of  the 
many  reports  (some  of  which  are  well  authenticated)  of 
their  practicing  as  they  taught.  Upon  this  as  upon  other 
points  we  have  only  used  what  we  considered  sufficient 
material  to  meet  the  issue.  The  investigation  has  con- 
vinced us  more  thoroughly  than  before  that  the  Utah 
Church  is  a  rejected  church,  and  that  the  Reorganization 
stands  upon  an  impregnable  rock  of  defense. 

Humbly  we  send  forth  our  conclusions,  and  our  reasons 
therefor,  praying  that  they  may  prove  encouraging  and 
confirming  to  the  faithful,  and  warning  and  convincing  to 
the  erring. 

Though  we  expect  to  give  an  account  for  our  teaching  as 
well  as  our  conduct  at  the  bar  of  God,  we  do  not  hesitate 
to  present  to  the  reader  the  Reorganized  Church  of  Jesus 
Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints  as  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ, 
and  Joseph  Smith  the  son  of  the  Martyr  as  its  Prophet  and 
President. 


CHAPTER  13. 

CORRESPONDENCE— LETTERS  OF  LONG— OF  DESERET  NEWS— OF 
C.  W.  PENROSE— OF  CLARK -OF  RICHARDS —POSITION  OF  RICH- 
ARDS AND  PENROSE  —  OF  REORGANIZATION  —  PRESIDENCY — 
APOSTLESHIP— PRESIDENCY  OF  HIGH  PRIESTHOOD— JOSEPHITE 
CONTENTION  SUSTAINED— PENROSE  DILEMMA— CONCLUSION. 

SINCE  concluding  the  foregoing  chapters  the  following 
correspondence  has  come  into  our  possession,  and  as  ques- 
tions are  answered  therein  which  we  had  vainly  attempted 
to  have  answered  before,  we  will  present  it.  We  give  the 
correspondence  in  full  that  these  men  and  their  methods 
may  be  presented  to  the  reader  in  their  own  words. 

It  appears  that  Mr.  Long  was  under  the  impression  that 
Mr.  Penrose  was  Editor  of  the  Deseret  News,  and  so  ad- 
dressed him.  The  News  answered  the  first  two  communi- 
cations without  the  knowledge  of  Mr.  Penrose.  The  last 
letter  Mr.  Penrose  received  and  answered  in  person.  This 
will  account  for  the  misunderstanding.  Mr.  Richards  is 
the  official  Historian  of  the  Utah  Church,  and  Mr.  Penrose 
is  connected  with  the  same  department,  hence  their  state- 
ments on  historical  points  will  doubtless  be  considered 
official. 

The  letters  read  as  follows: — 

HIGDON,  Ala.,  Nov.  19,  1897. 
To  the  Editor  Deseret  Evening  News,  Salt  Lake  City,  Utah; 

Dear  Sir: — I  write  you  as  an  investigator,  seeking  to  know 
the  truth.  I  am  a  member  of  the  Baptist  Church,  but  I  am 
interested  in  what  is  called  by  your  people  and  others,  the  lat- 
ter-day work. 

I  have  kept  and  cared  for  elders  of  the  church  under  the 
presidency  of  Wilford  Woodruff,  commonly  called  "Brigham- 
ites."  I  have  also  kept  and  cared  for  elders  (or  an  elder)  of  the 
church  under  the  presidency  of  Joseph  Smith,  of  Lamoni, 


150  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

Iowa,   commonly    called    "Josephites"    or    the    "Reorganized 
Church." 

These  elders  do  not  agree  as  to  the  calling  and  ordination  of 
Brigham  Young  as  President  of  the  Church  after  the  death  of 
Joseph  Smith  in  1844.  The  Josephite  elders  claim  that  he 
never  was  properly  ordained;  only  elected  as  President  of  the 
Church. 

Will  you  please  tell  me  if  this  is  true  or  not?  If  he  was 
ordained,  please  state  by  what  authority  and  who  officiated, 
that  I  may  be  able  to  answer  the  "Josephites"  if  it  be  a  false 
claim. 

By  answering  the  above  and  giving  me  any  other  information 
you  may  feel  led  to  give,  you  will  greatly  oblige, 

Yours  respectfully, 

J.  O.  LONG. 
Office  of  Deseret  News  Publishing  Company. 

SALT  LAKE  CITY,  Utah,  Dec.  6,  1897. 
J.  O.  LONG,  ESQ.,  Higdon,  Ala.; 

Dear  Sir: — The  Mormon  Elders  have  frequently  to  meet  the 
misrepresentations  made  by  the  Josephite  Elders,  and  in  order 
to  meet  this  matter  fully  without  entering  into  private  discus- 
sions, Elder  B.  H.  Roberts  has  written  a  book  called  the  "Suc- 
cession in  the  Presidency,"  in  which  he  sets  forth  all  the 
particulars  in  relation  to  the  succession  of  President  Brigham 
Young  to  President  Joseph  Smith,  and  we  think  he  has  covered 
the  ground  very  successfully  and  has  left  nothing  whatever  for 
our  opponents,  the  Josephites,  to  base  their  claims  on.  We  for- 
ward you  to-day  a  copy  of  the  book,  the  price  of  which  is  30 
cents,  and  we  trust  you  will  kindly  remit  the  amount  to  us  by 
return  mail.  Yours  truly, 

DESERET  NEWS  PUBLISHING  Co. 

Evans,  Manager. 

HIGDON,  Ala.,  Jan.  26,  1898. 
MR.  C.  W.  PENROSE,  Editor  Deseret  News, 

Salt  Lake  City,  Utah. 

Dear  Sir: — In  reply  to  yours  of  December  6,  1897: — 

After  examining  the  book  "Succession  in  the  Presidency," 
with  some  care,  I  yet  find  no  answer  to  the  question  in  my 
former  letter  of  inquiry  to  you;  viz.:  "Was  Brigham  Young 
properly  ordained  as  President  of  the  Church  after  Joseph 
Smith's  death,  and  if  so,  when  and  by  whom?"  which  you  will 
please  answer  if  you  have  the  data  at  hand. 

As  before-stated  I  am  not  a  "Brighamite"  or  "Josephite,"  but 
a  Baptist;  but  I  am  interested  in  this  question,  hence  my 
importunity. 

Enclosed  is  30cts.  to  pay  for  book  and  also  self-addressed, 
stamped  envelope  for  your  reply  to  me. 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  151 

Trusting  my  importunity  will  not  weary  your  patience,  and 
hoping  to  have  an  early  reply,  I  am, 

Yours  respectfully, 

J.  O.  LONG. 

"The  only  answer  to  this  letter  was  a  postal  card  ac- 
knowledging the  receipt  of  the  30  cts." 

Office  of  Deseret  News  Publishing  Company. 

SALT  LAKE  CITY,  Utah,  Feb.  7,  1898. 
J.  O.  LONG,  Higdon,  Ala. 

We  have  received  your  favor  of  Jan.  26,  1898,  containing  ^ 
dollars,  and  the  amount  of  the  remittance  has  been  placed  to 
your  credit  on  account. 

Thanking  you  for  past  favors,  and  soliciting  your  kind  pat- 
ronage, in  the  future,  we  remain, 

Yours  truly, 
DESERET  NEWS  PUBLISHING  Co., 

Per  Neslen. 

HIGDON,  Ala.,  May  12,  1898. 
MB.  C.  W.  PENROSE,  Ed.  Deseret  News,  Salt  Lake  City. 

Dear  Sir: — On  November  19,  1897,  I  wrote  you  asking  for 
information  as  to  who  ordained  Brigham  Young  as  President 
of  the  Latter  Day  Saint  or  Mormon  Church. 

My  reasons  for  writing  you,  as  then  stated  were:  I  had  been 
a  friend  to  both  the  elders  of  your  church  and  those  of  the 
Reorganized  Church;  had  lodged  and  fed  them  bothi  had  heard 
them  talk;  and  as  an  honest  man,  wanted  to  know  if  the  claim 
made  by  the  "Josephites;"  viz.:  that  Brigham  Young  was 
never  ordained  at  all,  as  President  of  the  Church,  was  true:  and 
asked  you  the  question,  "If  he  was  ordained,  where  and  by 
whom  was  it  done?"  Your  answer  to  my  letter  was  a  charge 
of  misrepresentation  by  you  against  the  "Josephites"  and  you 

also  sent  a  work  entitled by  Elder  B.  H.  Roberts,  which 

you  thought  "covered  all  the  grounds." 

The  book  I  carefully  read  and  found  no  answer  to  my  ques- 
tion, and  wrote  you  again  on  the  26th  of  January,  1898,  so 
informing  you,  and  repeated  my  question  in  the  following  form: 
"Was  Britrham  Young  properly  ordained  as  President  of  the 
Church  after  Joseph  Smith's  death,  and  if  so,  when  and  by 
whom?" 

To  this  letter  you  was  pleased  to  make  no  reply,  or  at  least  I 
received- none,  although  I  sent  you  self-addressed  stamped  en- 
velope. 

I  write  again,  hoping  you  will  reply,  and,  if  you  do  not,  I 
shall  be  forced  to  believe  the  charge  of  misrepresentation,  so 


152  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

far  as  this  point  is  concerned,  should  not  be  lodged  against  the 
"Josephites." 

As  before-stated,  I  am  a  Baptist,  but  I  want  to  know  the  truth 
in  all  things,  and  as  for  this  point,  I  thought  one  letter  from 
you  would  settle  it;  but  so  far  you  have  evaded  the  matter, 
and  I  must  say  that  the  impression  you  have  made  on  me  by 
this  evasion  is  not  for  the  best  for  your  side,  as  it  leads  to  the 
conclusion  that  the  claim  of  the  Josephites  is  true. 

May  I  hear  from  you  soon,  please? 

Respectfully,  J.  O.  LONG. 

Historian's  Office,  60  E.  South  Temple  Street, 

SALT  LAKE  CITY,  Utah,  May  18,  1898. 
J.  O.  LONG,  Esq.,  Higdon,  Ala. 

Dear  Sir: — I  have  this  moment  received  over  your  signature 
a  very  imperative  and  peremptory  letter.  My  first  impulse  was 
to  treat  it  as  insulting  letters  should  be  treated,  but  on  reading 
it  carefully  I  regard  it  as  the  result  of  some  mistakes  on  your 
part,  and  lest  it  might  be  a  fact  that  you  are  honestly  seeking 
for  information,  I  reply  to  it  without  ill-feeling.  I  am  not  aware 
that  I  have  ever  received  a  communication  from  you  before. 
I  am  not  the  editor  of  the  Deseret  News.  I  have  not  sent  to  you 
a  work  entitled  "Succession,"  nor  have  I  received  from  you 
any  "self-addressed,"  stamped  envelope;  nor  have  I,  as  you  so 
bluntly  charge,  "evaded"  any  matter  which  you  claim  to  have 
presented.  And  further,  I  am  not  aware  that  I  am  under  any 
obligation  to  answer  letters  addressed  to  me  in  the  spirit  of  the 
communication  now  before  me.  So  much  for  that. 

Now  my  dear  sir,  to  your  question:  "Was  Brigham  Young 
properly  ordained  as  President  of  the  Church  after  Joseph 
Smith's  death,  and  if  so,  when  and  by  whom?" 

In  asking  that  question  you  are  evidently  under  a  misappre- 
hension as  to  the  order  of  Priesthood  and  Presidency  in  the 
Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter-day  Saints.  That  arises, 
doubtless,  from  an  idea  that  has  been  entertained  by  persons  in 
the  "Reorganized"  Church  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  revelation 
given  March  28,  1835,  Section  107;  21,  22.  D.  and  0. 

"Of  necessity  there  are  Presidents  or  Presiding  offices  grow- 
ing out  of,  or  appointed  of  or  from  among  those  who  are 
ordained  to  the  several  offices  in  these  two  Priesthoods." 

"Of  the  Melchisedek  Priesthood,  three  Presiding  High 
Priests  chosen  by  the  body,  appointed  and  ordained  to  that 
office,  and  upheld  by  the  confidence,  faith  and  prayer  of  the 
Church,  form  a  quorum  of  the  Presidency  of  the  Church." 

Brigham  Young  at  the  death  of  Joseph  was  the  President  of 
the  Twelve  Apostles,  so  designated  by  revelation.  Apostles  are 
Presiding  High  Priests,  appointed  and  ordained  to  that  office. 
He  having  been  so  appointed  and  ordained  was  in  due  time 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  153 

chosen  by  the  body  and  upheld  by  the  confidence,  faith  and 
prayer  of  the  Church,  and  with  two  counselors,  each  of  whom 
was  also  a  Presiding  High  Priest,  having  been  appointed  and 
ordained  to  that  office,  thus  became  the  First  Presidency, 
according  to  the  revelation. 

No  man  is  ordained  President  of  the  Church.  He  is  ordained 
to  that  Priesthood  which  qualifies  him  for  the  position  of  Presi- 
dent when  chosen  and  sustained  by  the  Church.  The  question 
might  be  asked,  when  was  Joseph  the  Prophet  ordained  Presi- 
dent of  the  Church?  He  was  ordained  an  Apostle  and  thus 
being  a  Presiding  High  Priest  was  accepted  by  the  Church  and 
sustained  in  that  capacity. 

Priesthood  is  conferred  by  ordination;  Presidency  is  another 
thing.  It  does  not  come  by  ordination,  using  that  term  in  the 
same  sense  as  in  reference  to  conferring  Priesthood,  nor  does  it 
come  by  lineage.  It  is  by  choice  and  appointment  and  the 
common  consent  of  the  Church;  but  the  person  so  chosen  must 
have  been  ordained  to  the  proper  Priesthood  to  be  qualified  for 
the  position.  The  word  "ordained,"  however,  is  sometimes 
used  in  another  sense,  as  anything  that  God  appoints  or  orders 
or  ordains,  but  in  the  revelation  referred  to  signifies  evidently 
just  what  I  have  stated.  If  I  have  not  made  this  sufficiently 
plain,  I  shall  be  willing  to- respond  to  any  courteous  inquiry. 
Respectfully  yours,  etc., 

C.  W.  PENROSE. 

EULA  P.  OM  Jackson  Co.,  Ala.,  Feb.  26,  1898. 
MR.  F.  D.  RICHARDS, 

Dear  Sir: — You  will  excuse  me  for  writing  to  you;  I  want  to 
ask  you  a  question.  Your  elders  that  are  doing  preaching  here 
or  have  been  doing  preaching  here  seem  to  be  nice  men,  and  we 
have  another  kind  of  preachers  that  come  here;  they  call  them 
Josephites.  They  say  Brigham  Young  never  was  ordained 
to  be  President  of  the  Church,  therefore  your  elders  haven't 
got  any  right  to  preach  nor  baptize. 

Now,  if  you  will  answer  my  questions  you  will  oblige. 

Was  Brigham  Young  ordained  to  be  President  of  the  Church? 
If  so,  who  ordained  him — when  was  he  ordained  and  who  did  it? 

I  am  asking  these  questions  for  information.  You  will  please 
write  and  give  me  the  information  I  so  much  want.  I  belong 
to  no  church. 

There  don't  seem  to  be  much  difference  between  your  elders 
and  the  Josephites  in  the  way  they  believe,  only  the  President 
of  the  Church. 

I  hope  to  hear  from  you  soon  and  have  an  answer  to  my  ques- 
tion. Respectfully, 

JEHU  B.  CLARK. 

EULA  P.  O.,  Jackson  County,  Alabama. 


154  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

SALT  LAKE  CITY,  Utah,  March  7,  1898. 
JEHU  B.  CLARK,  Eula,  Alabama. 

My  Dear  Sir: — There  are  no  dissenting  branches  of  the 
Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter-day  Saints.  There  is  an 
organization  calling  itself  "The  Reorganized  Church,"  but  it  is 
in  no  sense  a  branch  of  this  Church.  It  is  composed  of  persons 
who  follow  Joseph  Smith,  son  of  the  deceased  Prophet,  and 
who  claim  that  when  the  latter  died,  having  been  martyred  for 
the  word  of  God  and  the  testimony  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Church 
thereby  became  disorganized;  a  palpable  absurdity.  The 
Church  founded,  under  God,  by  Joseph  Smith  the  Prophet  has 
continued  without  interruption  to  the  present  time,  with  the 
Apostleship,  doctrines,  ordinances,  gifts  and  powers  as  estab- 
lished and  revealed  from  the  Lord. 

In  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter-day  Saints,  no  one 
has  ever  been  ordained  to  be  President  of  the  Church.  In  the 
beginning  the  Lord  sent  Peter,  James  and  John,  and  they 
ordained  Joseph  Smith  an  Apostle  and  he  was  instructed  how 
to  organize  and  build  up  the  Church  in  this  dispensation. 
When  the  Prophet  and  Apostle  Joseph  Smith  was  taken  from 
us,  Brigham  Young,  being  President  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  it 
devolved  upon  him  to  preside  over  the  Church,  as  the  Apostle 
is  the  highest  office  known  in  the  Church  of  Christ.  So  also, 
when  the  Prophet  and  Apostle  Brigham  Young  died,  John  Tay- 
lor, being  President  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  it  devolved  upon 
him.  In  the  same  manner,  when  he  departed,  Wilford  Wood- 
ruff, being  President  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  the  Presidency 
devolved  upon  him.  Neither  Joseph  Smith,  Brigham  Young, 
John  Taylor  nor  Wilford  Woodruff  were  ordained  Presidents  of 
the  Church.  It  is  not  according  to  the  order  of  the  Church  to 
ordain  Presidents  of  the  Church,  for  there  is  no  such  order  of 
the  Priesthood  known  in  the  Church.  When  the  Savior 
departed,  the  Presiding  Apostle  Peter  took  charge,  as  it  was 
his  right  of  office,  and  James  and  John  were  his  counselors,  and 
that  is  how  they  seemed  to  be  pillars  in  the  Church,  the  same 
as  it  is  now  in  the  true  Church.  Offices  in  the  Church  are  con- 
ferred by  ordination,  but  offices  of  position  to  honor  and  labor 
are  conferred  by  calling  or  appointment,  and  not  by  ordina- 
tion. May  the  clear  light  of  truth  enable  you  to  understand 
the  things  of  God,  and  preserve  you  from  being  deceived  by 
any  other  than  the  true  doctrine  of  Christ. 

Success  to  you  in  your  prayerful  search  for  the  way  of  the 
Lord.  Yours  in  the  Truth, 

F.  D.  RICHARDS. 

We  are  heartily  glad  that  these  men  have  at  last  taken  a 
position  on  this  point,  and  we  thank  Messrs.  Long  and 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  155 

Clark  for  having  kindly  furnished  us  this  important 
material. 

It  will  be  seen  that  both  Mr.  Richards  and  Mr.  Penrose 
take  the  position  that  Presidents  are  not  ordained  as  such, 
but  chosen  from  those  previously  holding  office  by  virtue 
of  which  they  are  eligible  to  the  position  chosen,  and  that 
they  then  occupy  without  further  ordination.  They  apply 
this  rule  to  the  President  of  the  Church,  and  Mr.  Richards 
affirms  that,  "In  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter 
Day  Saints,  no  one  has  ever  been  ordained  to  be  President 
of  the  Church." 

The  Reorganization  has  taken  the  position  (see  p.  133) 
stated  in  the  following: — 

Resolved,  that  as  the  office  of  First  President  of  the  Church 
grows  out  of  the  authority  of  the  Presiding  High  Priest  in  the 
high  priesthood,  no  person  can  legally  lay  claim  to  the  office 
of  First  President  of  the  Church,  without  a  previous  ordination 
to  the  Presidency  of  the  High  Priesthood. 

So  the  issue  is  squarely  before  us,  and  we  are  pleased  to 
meet  it. 

It  will  not  be  necessary  for  us  to  enter  into  an  exegesis 
of  the  law,  which  would  admit  of  a  difference  of  opinion. 
We  will  simply  give  a  few  universally  acknowledged  his- 
torical facts  which  will  clearly  show  that  our  learned  oppo- 
nents are  wrong.  On  February  15,  1836,  at  Kirtland, 
Ohio,  Presidents  were  chosen  to  the  High  Priests,  Elders, 
Priests,  Teachers,  and  Deacons  quorums,  and  each  of  them 
duly  set  apart  by  ordination.  The  record  is  as  follows: — 

After  one  hour's  adjournment  of  the  Council,  Elder  Don 
Carlos  Smith  was  nominated  and  seconded  to  be  ordained  to  the 
High  Priesthood,  also  to  officiate  as  President,  to  preside  over 
that  body  in  Kirtland.  The  vote  of  the  respective  quorums 
was  called  in  their  order,  and  passed  through  the  whole  house 
by  their  unanimous  voice. 

Elder  Alva  Beeman  was  chosen  in  the  same  manner,  to  pre- 
side over  the  Elders  in  Kirtland. 

William  Cowdery  was  nominated  and  seconded  to  officiate  as 


156  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

President  over  the  Priests  of  the  Aaronic  Priesthood  in  Kirt- 
land. 

The  vote  of  the  Assembly  was  called,  beginning  at  the  Bish- 
op's Council,  and  passing  through  the  several  authorities,  until 
it  came  to  the  Presidency  of  the  High  Council  in  Kirtland,  and 
received  their  sanction,  having  been  carried  unanimously,  in 
all  the  departments  below. 

Oliver  Olney  was  unanimously  elected  to  preside  over  the 
Teachers  in  Kirtland. 

Ira  Bond  was  unanimously  chosen  to  preside  over  the  Dea- 
cons in  Kirtland. 

Elders  Don  Carlos  Smith  and  Alva  Beeman  were  ordained  to 
the  offices  to  which  they  had  been  elected,  under  the  hands  of 
Presidents  Joseph  Smith,  Junior,  S.  Rigdon,  and  H.  Smith, 
with  many  blessings. 

Bishop  Whitney,  of  Kirtland,  then  proceeded  to  ordain  Wil- 
liam Cowdery,  Oliver  Olney,  and  Ira  Bond,  and  pronounced 
many  blessings  upon  them  according  to  their  offices  and  stand- 
ing.— Millennial  Star,  Vol.  15,  pp.  593-594. 

At  Nauvoo,  Illinois,  in  1841,  George  Miller  was  chosen 
to  succeed  Don  C.  Smith  as  President  of  the  High  Priests 
Quorum,  and  of  this  he  says: — 

And  at  the  fall  conference  after  the  death  of  Don  Carlos 
Smith,  I  was  called  and  set  apart  as  President  of  the  Quorum  of 
High  Priests,  with  my  counselors  Noah  Packard  and  Amasa 
Lyman.— Church  History,  Vol.  2,  p.  793. 

In  Millennial  Star,  Vol.  16,  p.  342,  we  find  the  following: 
"Stephen  Chase  was  ordained  President  of  the  Elders 
Quorum  in  Far  West."  This  was  on  October  6,  1838. 

Again,  on  March  1,  1835,  "Joseph  Young  and  Sylvester 
Smith  were  ordained  Presidents  of  the  Seventies."  (Millen- 
nial Star,  Vol.  15,  .p.  230.) 

These  are  but  few  of  the  many  instances  that  we  could 
cite  to  show  that  in,  the  days  of  Joseph  the  Martyr  Presi- 
dents were  set  apart  by  ordination,  hence  Mr.  Penrose  is 
wrong  when  in  speaking  of  Presidency  he  says:  "It  does 
not  come  by  ordination,"  etc. 

Not  only  were  Presidents  ordained  in  the  church  in  the 
days  of  the  Martyr,  but  the  Utah  Church  has  adopted  the 
practice.  Andrew  Jensen  in  his  "Historical  Record,"  Vol. 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  157 

5,  pp.  82,  83,  speaks  of  the  ordination  of  Presidents  of  Sev- 
enties as  follows:  Jedediah  M.  Grant,  in  1844;  Horace  S. 
Eldredge,  October,  1854;  Jacob  Gates,  October,  1862;  Wil- 
liam W.  Taylor,  1879;  Abraham  H.  Cannon,  October  9, 
1882;  Seymour  B.  Young,  October  16,  1882;  Daniel  Fjel- 
sted,  April  28,  1884;  and  John  Morgan,  October  7,  1884. 

Pages  could  be  filled  with  instances  of  ordinations  to 
Presidency,  but  surely  these  are  sufficient. 

By  the  above  we  learn  that  when  the  quorums  were  first 
set  in  order  under  Joseph  Smith  the  Seer,  that  Presidents 
were  set  apart  by  ordination  in  the  quorums  of  Seventy, 
High  Priests,  Elders,  Priests,  Teachers  and  Deacons. 
Even  if  ordinations  to  Presidency  were  unnecessary  in  the 
apostolic  quorums  of  First  Presidency  and  Twelve  Apos- 
tles, our  opponents  are  too  extravagant  in  laying  down  the 
rule  that  Presidency  "does  not  come  by  ordination.'' 
They  should  have  admitted  the  rule  and  claimed  an  excep- 
tion. 

Having  disposed  of  their  interpretation  of  the  rule,  it 
might  be  more  in  keeping  with  order  to  rest  here  and 
await  the  filing  of  their  claim  of  exception;  but  as  this  is 
our  closing  argument,  we  will  meet  their  position  by  show- 
ing that  it  is  neither  the  rule  nor  the  exception. 

Mr.  Richards  makes  the  direct  claim  (to  which  Mr.  Pen- 
rose  by  inference  agrees)  that,  "In  the  beginning  the  Lord 
sent  Peter,  James,  and  John  and  they  ordained  Joseph 
Smith  an  Apostle,  and  he  was  instructed  how  to  organize 
and  build  up  the  church  in  this  dispensation." 

They  then  argue  that  by  virtue  of  the  apostleship  then 
conferred,  (not  later  than  September,  1830,  D.  C.  26:  3,)  he 
was  President  of  the  Church.  Both  of  these  gentlemen 
either  ignorantly  or  dishonestly  ignore  the  fact  that  not- 
withstanding Joseph  Smith  had  been  an  apostle  since  1830, 
he  did,  on  January  25,  1832,  receive  an  additional  ordina- 
tion, at  Amherst,  Ohio,  to  the  office  of  President  of  the 


158  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

High  Priesthood,  (see  this  book,  p.  143,)  and  that  on  April 
26,  1832,  he  was  received  by  the  church  in  Missouri  in  that 
capacity. 

It  is  only  necessary  here  to  cite  the  language  of  the  law 
to  show  that  this  was  tantamount  to  an  ordination  as 
President  of  the  Church: — 

And  again,  the  duty  of  the  president  of  the  office  of  the  high 
priesthood  is  to  preside  over  the  whole  church,  and  to  be  like 
unto  Moses.  Behold,  here  is  wisdom,  yea,  to  be  a  seer,  a  reve- 
lator,  a  translator,  and  a  prophet;  having  all  the  gifts  of  God 
which  he  bestows  upon  the  head  of  the  church. — Doc.  and  Cov. 
104:  42. 

The  assertion,  then,  of  Mr.  Richards,  that  *  'Neither 
Joseph  Smith,  Brigham  Young,  John  Taylor,  nor  Wilford 
Woodruff,  were  ordained  Presidents  of  the  Church,"  in  so 
far  as  it  refers  to  Joseph  Smith,  is  false.  The  position  of 
the  Reorganization  as  set  forth  in  the  above  resolution  is 
in  harmony  with  both  law  and  precedent.  The  ordination 
of  Joseph,  the  son  of  the  Martyr,  to  the  office  of  President 
of  the  High  Priesthood,  was  exactly  in  harmony  with  the 
ordination  of  his  illustrious  father  whom  he  succeeds. 
Strange  that  the  Utah  authorities  question  the  validity  of 
this  ordination,  and  yet  defend  the  claims  of  Brigham 
Young  and  his  successors  in  office,  while  they  concede  that 
they  nor  either  of  them  had  an  ordination  of  any  kind  to 
the  office  of  President  of  the  Church;  and  Mr.  Richards 
goes  so  far  as  to  say,  "It  is  not  according  to  the  order  of 
the  church  to  ordain  Presidents  of  the  church,  for  there  is 
no  such  order  of  the  Priesthood  known  in  the  church." 
This  is  unquestionably  true  as  regards  that  church  repre- 
sented by  Mr.  Richards.  But  this  office  is  provided  for  in 
the  law  given  to  the  church  organized  by  Joseph  Smith 
and  others  in  1830.  The  Prophet  and  his  colleagues  were 
in  practice  in  harmony  with  that  law;  and  the  Reorganized 
Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints  as  the  lawful 


CHURCH  PRESIDENCY.  ,  159 

continuation  of  the  church  organized  in  1830  accepts  that 
law  and  practically  carries  it  into  effect. 

If,  as  Mr.  Richards  states,  Brigham  Young  was  not 
ordained  President  of  the  Church,  then  the  contention  of 
the  "Josephites,"  as  set  forth  in  Mr.  Long's  letter,  is  sus- 
tained, and  the  charge  of  misrepresentation  made  by  the 
Deseret  News  should  be  retracted.  These  men  are  in  des- 
perate straits  and  their  struggles  excite  in  us  a  mingled 
feeling  of  pity  and  contempt.  The  floundering  of  Mr.  Pen- 
rose  is  especially  pitiable.  After  quoting  the  law  and 
seeking  to  construe  it  to  mean  what  it  does  not  say,  he 
plunges  into  a  self-contradictory  tangle  from  which  he  can 
never  disengage  himself.  He  says:  "Apostles  are  Presid- 
ing High  Priests,  appointed  and  ordained  to  that  office." 
Again,  he  says  of  Joseph  Smith:  "He  wa*  ordained  an 
Apostle  and  thus  being  a  Presiding  High  Priest  was  accepted 
by  the  church  and  sustained  in  that  capacity."  After  thus 
affirming  that  Joseph  Smith  was  a  Presiding  High  Priest 
by  virtue  of  an  ordination,  he  immediately  flops  and  says 
Presidency  "does  not  come  by  ordination."  The  truth  is 
that  these  men  realize  that  neither  Messrs.  Young,  Taylor, 
Woodruff,  nor  Snow  ever  had  an  ordination  to  the  office  of 
President  of  the  High  Priesthood;  which  office,  according 
to  law,  entitles  a  man  to  the  right  to  preside  over  the 
whole  church  (and  virtually  such  ordination  makes  him  the 
President);  and  hence  they  conclude  that  Presidency  "does 
not  come  by  ordination;"  and  yet  they  must  find  some 
plausible  excuse  for  Young  et  al.  assuming  to  preside,  and 
so  they  say  they  were  ordained  Presiding  High  Priests.  The 
only  consistent  way  out  of  this  dilemma  is  to  resolve  that, 
Whereas,  Joseph  Smith,  though  an  apostle,  was  ordained 
to  the  office  of  President  of  the  High  Priesthood;  there- 
fore, Brigham  Young  et  al.,  though  apostles,  had  no  right 
to  assume  to  preside  over  the  whole  church  without  such 
ordination. 


160  TRUE  SUCCESSION  IN 

When  these  gentlemen  can  establish  their  position  that 
an  apostle  can  preside  over  the  church  by  virtue  of  his 
ordination  as  a  Presiding  High  Priest,  and  at  the  same  time 
sustain  their  contention  that  Presidency  "does  not  come 
by  ordination,"  we  would  be  pleased  to  hear  from  them 
again. 

We  sincerely  thank  Mr.  Eichards  for  his  frank  acknowl- 
edgement that  the  Reorganization  "is  in  no  sense  a  branch 
of  this  [their]  Church;"  and  congratulate  Messrs.  Long 
and  Clark  on  their  success  in  drawing  out  of  these  men  a 
statement  of  their  position  where  others  have  failed. 

Again,  we  conclude  by  presenting  to  the  reader,  with 
renewed  confidence,  the  Reorganized  Church  as  the 
Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints.  Its  Presi- 
dent is  of  the  lineage  pointed  out  in  the  revelations  of  God 
as  entitled  to  that  position.  He  was  appointed  of  God 
through  his  father  according  to  the  direction  given  in  the 
revelations.  He  was  called  of  God  by  revelation  according 
to  the  law  which  says: — 

The  president  of  the  church,  who  is  also  the  president  of  the 
council,  is  appointed  by  revelation,  and  acknowledged,  in  his 
administration,  by  the  voice  of  the  church. — D.  C.  99:  6. 

He  was  regularly  ordained  to  the  office  of  President  of 
the  High  Priesthood,  as  was  his  father  before  him,  by  vir- 
tue of  which  he  is  entitled  "to  preside  over  the  whole 
church,  and  to  be  like  unto  Moses."  Not  one  of  these 
requisites  can  be  claimed  by  Lorenzo  Snow,  nor  his  prede- 
cessors, Elders  Woodruff,  Taylor,  and  Young. 

We  exhort  and  admonish  Latter  Day  Israel  everywhere 
to  hear  and  heed  the  inspired  message  of  this  servant  ot 
God  that  was  addressed  to  them  so  many  years  ago  (see 
pp.  138,  139),  and  remember  that  "he  that  heareth  him 
that  is  sent,  heareth  the  Lord  who  sent  him." 


Appendix  to  True  Succession 

in 

Church   Presidency. 

BY  ELDER  NEMAN  C  SMITH. 

SINCE  the  publication  of  my  book  entitled  True 
Succession  in  Church  Presidency,  which  was  a  reply 
to  the  work  of  Elder  B.  H.  Roberts  of  the  Utah 
Church,  entitled  Succession  in  the  Presidency  of  the 
Church,  Mr.  Roberts  has  published  a  second,  edition 
of  his  work  in  which  he  has  added  some  new  matter, 
in  some  points  changed  the  reading  of  his  original 
publication,  and  in  some  minor  points  undertaken  to 
reply  to  me.  The  more  important  part  of  my  argu- 
ment and  evidence,  however,  remains  unchallenged 
by  Mr.  Roberts.  Taken  as  a  whole  I  could  have 
afforded  to  have  let  the  two  books  stand  before  the 
public  without  further  comment  were  it  not  for  the 
new  matter  introduced  which  may  mislead  some  who 
are  not  acquainted  with  the  history  or  the  circum- 
stances referred  to.  However,  since  it  becomes  nec- 
essary to  notice  the  new  matter,  I  will  take  occasion 
to  briefly  refer  to  some  of  his  so-called  replies. 
Elder  Roberts  sometimes  quotes  a  part  of  a  passage 
and  leaves  out  the  vital  point  of  the  argument. 
Where  he  quotes  from  private  journals  and  writings, 
leaving  us  to  infer  that  he  has  access  to  them  while 


164  APPENDIX. 

he  knows  we  have  not,  we  neither  admit  nor  deny  the 
correctness  of  the  quotations.  This  kind  of  evidence 
to  a  certain  extent  may  be  admissible  but  can  not  be 
accepted  as  conclusive  where  there  is  a  vital  point  at 
issue.  One  of  the  most  unfair  things  he  does,  how- 
ever, is  to  insist  that  every  one  who  is  in  sympathy 
with  him  is  a  competent  witness,  while  he  assumes 
without  a  particle  of  evidence  that  if  a,  witness  did 
not  agree  to  the  actions  of  the  Twelve  at  Nauvoo 
he  has  lost  his  honor.  If  an  advocate  is  permitted  to 
introduce  all  witnesses  without  question  who  are  in 
sympathy  with  his  cause,  and  all  who  are  not  in 
sympathy  are  for  that  reason  impeached,  he  can 
establish  any  proposition  he  may  wish.  This  ought 
to  be  apparent  even  to  a  Brighamite,  but  neverthe- 
less Mr.  Roberts  insists  on  conducting  the  argument 
on  this  basis. 

In  replying  to  Mr.  Roberts  I  raised  three  objections 
to  his  basic  proposition,  viz.,  that  Brigham  Young 
had  prophesied  that  "All  that  want  to  draw  away 
a  party  from  the  Church  after  them,  let  them  do  it  if 
they  can,  but  they  will  not  prosper."  First,  that  the 
statement  is  not  significant,  as  we  must  first  deter- 
mine where  the  Church  is  before  we  can  judge  of  its 
fulfillment.  Second,  that  the  evidence  of  its  fulfill- 
ment is  not  complete  even  from  Mr.  Roberts'  stand- 
point, as  there  is  yet  a  flourishing  organization 
opposed  to  what  he  calls  the  Church.  And  third, 
that  the  evidence  that  Mr.  Young  ever  made  this 
statement  is  not  clear. 

The  first  two  objections  he  entirely  ignores,  thus 
virtually  conceding  their  strength.  With  these  two 


APPENDIX.  165 

points  conceded,  we  care  not  whether  Mr.  Young 
made  the  remark  or  not. 

But  he  meets  the  third  objection  by  simply  claim- 
ing that  the  minutes  of  the  meeting  as  published  in  the 
Times  and  Seasons  were  not  full  and  adding:  "But 
when  the  history  of  the  event  was  more  fully  written 
his  remarks  were  given  more  in  detail."  Mr.  Roberts 
does  not  tell  us  how  these  detailed  remarks  were 
preserved  for  nearly  twenty  years  without  publica- 
tion. Was  there  a  verbatim  report  taken  at  the  time? 
If  so,  by  whom?  Where  is  the  original  copy  now? 
Or  were  there  simply  notes  taken,  and  the  skeleton 
perfected  afterwards?  Or  was  it  written  from  some 
one's  memory  who  was  present?  If  he  wants  us  to 
believe  he  should  tell  us  something  to  believe.  But 
if  Mr.  Roberts  makes  it  clear  that  Elder  Young  did 
say  just  what  is  reported  he  has  effected  nothing  so 
far  as  this  controversy  is  concerned. 

We  believe  that  he  who  undertakes  to  lead  a  party 
from  the  Church  will  not  prosper :  but  the  question 
is,  Where  is  the  Church?  Who  represents  it?  Why 
not  meet  the  issue  without  so  much  equivocating? 

On  pages  7  and  8  Mr.  Roberts  corrects  a  mistake 
made  in  his  first  edition  and  says:  "Inadvertently 
Hyrum  Smith  was  represented  as  the  counselor  to  the 
Prophet,"  and  sets  forth  that  Sidney  Rigdon  and 
William  Law  were  the  counselors  at  the  time  of  the 
Prophet's  death. 

Perhaps  it  was  inadvertently  that  he  failed  to  cor- 
rect page  9  so  as  to  harmonize  with  the  foregoing, 
for  there  he  still  represents  Sidney  Rigdon  as  the  fel- 
low counselor  of  Hyrum  Smith.  This  he  could  not 


166  APPENDIX. 

correct,  however,  without  abandoning  his  former 
position  that  Rigdon  was  retained  in  the  Presidency 
on  account  of  the  importunities  of  Hyrum  Smith  of 
the  same  quorum. 

On  page  13  of  my  treatise  I  called  attention  to 
President  Woodruff's  testimony  as  presented  by 
Roberts  being  in  conflict  with  the  record  regarding 
the  vote  on  accepting  Elder  Rigdon.  Mr.  Roberts 
makes  no  effort  to  defend  or  explain  the  testimony 
of  his  witness,  thus  leaving  Mr.  Woodruff  to  be 
impeached  without  protest.  Would  he  do  this  if 
defense  had  been  possible? 

Mr.  Roberts  still  insists  that  the  Twelve  were  sus- 
tained at  that  meeting  in  Nauvoo  on  August  8,  1844, 
as  the  First  Presidency,  and  gives  the  resolution  as 
quoted  from  Millenial  8 tar,  volume  25,  but  does  not 
attempt  to  explain  the  discrepancy  between  the  reso- 
lution as  published  at  the  time  in  the  Times  and  Sea- 
sons and  the  one  he  quotes;  it  surely  can  not  be 
explained  on  the  ground  that  the  first  publication 
was  shorter  and  the  last  more  in  detail  for  the  one  is 
not  only  shorter  than  the  other,  but  is  entirely  of  dif- 
ferent import. 

On  page  8  Mr.  Roberts  reaffirms  his  charge 
against  Sidney  Rigdon ;  and  though  he  had  not  given 
Mr.  Rigdon  the  credit  of  being  exonerated  from 
any  of  the  charges  made  against  him  in  1843,  he  now 
admits  that  the  charge  of  treacherous  correspondence 
with  Ex -governor  Carlin  was  satisfactorily  explained 
but  claims  that  the  charge  of  treasonable  conduct 
in  connection  with  John  C.  Bennett  was  not  explained, 


APPENDIX.  Iffi 

and  aoouses  us  of  making  a  part  to  bear  off  the  bur- 
den of  the  whole. 

The  reader  will  observe  that  Mr.  Roberts  has  noi 
presented  any  evidence  of  treasonable  conduct ;  and 
though  we  are  not  specially  interested  in  defending 
Sidney  Rigdon,  we  are  not  willing  to  believe  him 
guilty  of  such  base  conduct  simply  on  the  affirmation 
of  Mr.  B.  H.  Roberts.  He  states  that  if  any  doubt 
exists  of  the  treachery  of  Sidney  Rigdon  it  can  be 
dispelled  by  perusing  the  letter  of  John  C.  Bennett 
to  him  bearing  date  of  January  10,  1843,  and  by  the 
minutes  of  his  trial  before  the  Bishop  of  the  Church 
published  in  volume  five  of  Times  and  Seasons, 
pages  647-655  and  660-667.  He  gives  us  no  refer- 
ence as  to  where  we  may  find  the  letter  of  John  C. 
Bennett  referred  to. 

A  careful  perusal  of  the  minutes  of  the  so-called 
trial  of  Sidney  Rigdon  does  not  sustain  the  charge 
of  treachery.  The  minutes  of  that  trial  disclose  a 
disposition  on  the  part  of  Brigham  Young  and  his 
associates  to  dominate  and  bring  all  departments  of 
Church  work  under  their  dictation. 

It  is  presumed  to  be  a  trial  before  the  Presiding 
Bishop  of  the  Church  assisted  by  a  council  of  high 
priests ;  but  it  is  quite  evident  that  the  Twelve  were 
in  control.  The  minutes  represent  that  Brigham 
Young  was  in  charge.  He  requested  the  choir  to 
sing;  Orson  Hyde,  one  of  the  Twelve,  opened  with 
prayer;  Brigham  Young  made  the  opening  remarks, 
though  taking  occasion  to  remark  that  the  Twelve 
were  simply  there  as  witnesses,  and  not  as  judges. 
He  was  followed  by  remarks  from  Orson  Hyde, 


168  APPENDIX. 

Parley  P.  Pratt,  Amasa  Lyman,  John  Taylor,  W.  W. 
Phelps,  and  Heber  C.  Kimball.  These  each  of  them 
not  only  gave  evidence,  but  argued  the  case,  and 
each  of  them  presumed  to  decide  the  case  before  the 
verdict  of  the  court  was  rendered.  Brigham  Young 
made  the  statement  in  his  opening  remarks  that 
Joseph  and  Hyrum  Smith,  the  Book  of  Mormon  and 
Book  of  Doctrine  and  Covenants,  the  Temple,  Joseph 
Smith's  measures,  and  the  Twelve,  were  all  one 
party,  and  represented  Elder  Rigdon  and  others  as 
being  of  opposite  parties. 

Orson  Hyde  said,  "Elder  Rigdon  is  now  going  to 
work  to  make  a  division."  Mr.  Hyde  related  a  great 
deal  of  hearsay  evidence,  making  the  statement  that 
he  would  omit  names  unless  called  upon ;  but  there 
is  no  record  that  the  names  were  ever  called  for. 
Elder  Hyde's  statement  of  what  somebody  told  him 
without  the  council  knowing  who  it  was  passed  for 
evidence  before  that  council. 

Parley  P.  Pratt  said: 

I  say  and  bear  testimony  that  the  things  revealed  to  Sidney 
Rigdon  touching  the  great  battles  to  be  fought  somewhere ;  the 
secret  meetings ;  the  ordination  of  officers,  and  the  government 
of  this  Church,  is  a  revelation  of  falsehood  and  delusion,  calcu- 
lated to  lead  the  people  astray. 

Amasa  Lyman  said: 

There  are  many  who  seem  to.be  in  difficulty  concerning  Sid- 
ney Rigdon's  standing  in  the  Church  during  the  time  he  has 
been  wallowing  in  his  filth  and  corruption  for  four  or  five  years 
past. 

John  Taylor  said : 

There  has  already  been  much  said,  sufficient  to  criminate 
Elder  Rigdon,  and  to  prove  satisfactorily  to  the  mind  of  every 


APPENDIX.  169 

unprejudiced  person,  that  he  is  unworthy  of  the  confidence  we 
have  reposed  in  him;  that  he  has  dishonored  his  high  and  holy 
calling,  and  has  in  every  way  disqualified  himself  to  act  in  that 
relationship  to  the  Church,  which  he  has  heretofore  sustained. 

W.  W.  Phelps  said : 

He  has  come  and  lied  in  the  name  of  the  Lord.  .  .  .  The 
Devil  has  blinded  his  eyes,  and  he  has  endeavored  to  blind  the 
minds  of  the  people  against  those  revelations  that  have  been  our 
guide  since  we  came  into  this  Church.  ...  I  therefore,  in  the 
authority  of  the  holy  priesthood,  and  as  one  who  can  not  look 
upon  sin  with  any  degree  of  allowance,  declare  his  late  revela- 
tions, and  his  extraordinary  ordinations  of  prophets,  priests  and 
kings  among  the  Gentiles,  holding  the  keys  of  David, — of  the 
Devil;  and  let  all  the  people  say:  Amen. 

HeberC.  Kimballsaid: 

I  wish  the  people  would  hear  and  be  wise,  and  those  who  have 
been  upholding  Bro.  Sidney,  would  turn  about  before  they  go 
into  everlasting  despair. 

Thus  all  of  these  so-called  witnesses  presume  to 
decide  the  case  and  tell  that  high  council  what 
Sidney  Rigdon  was  guilty  of,  instead  of  simply  giv- 
ing testimony  and  allowing  the  council  to  decide  the 
question  of  guilt  or  innocence.  No  respectable  court 
understanding  its  prerogatives  and  duties,  would 
allow  witnesses  to  be  guilty  of  such  contempt.  If  Mr. 
Young  or  any  of  his  colleagues  had  gone  before  any 
court  of  justice  and  used  such  language,  they  would 
have  been  reprimanded,  and  if  not  heeding  the  repri- 
mand, would  have  been  punished  for  contempt. 

After  all  this  Mr.  Young  takes  the  floor  the  second 
time  and  states  what  Mr.  Hyde  had  before  stated, 
that  he  had  some  testimony  from  other  parties  whose 
names  he  would  not  give  if  it  could  be  dispensed 
with,  and  so  far  as  the  record  is  concerned  it  seems 


170  APPENDIX. 

to  have  been  dispensed  with.  There  is  no  record  of 
the  names  being  called  for,  nor  of  the  parties  being 
brought  before  the  council. 

The  law  gave  Mr.  Rigdon  the  privilege  of  having  a 
part  of  the  council  to  speak  in  his  behalf.  One  of  the 
council  did  volunteer  to  do  so,  namely,  "William 
Marks.  Then  instead  of  other  members  of  the  coun- 
cil speaking  against  the  accused  as  provided  in  the 
law,  Brigham  Young,  one  of  the  witnesses  in  the 
case,  is  permitted  to  reply  to  Mr.  Marks.  And  in 
that  reply  he  says:  "I  have  known  that  Bro.  Marks 
had  no  evidence  but  the  written  word;  but  if  this 
people  have  no  evidence  but  the  written  word,  it  is 
quite  time  to  go  to  the  river  and  be  baptized  for  the 
remission  of  their  sins." 

Witness  Young  was  followed  by  witness  Phelps  in 
answer  to  William  Marks.  He  was  followed  by  wit- 
ness Hyde.  After  these  three  chief  witnesses  had 
been  allowed  to  speak  in  answer  to  the  arguments  of 
one  of  the  council,  Bishop  Whitney,  who  presided, 
gave  privilege  for  any  other  councilor  to  speak  who 
wished  to  do  so,  but  no  one  responded. 

Taking  into  consideration  that  Newel  K.  Whitney, 
who  presided  over  that  council,  was  not  at  the  time 
Presiding  Bishop  of  the  Church,  but  was  substituted 
for  George  Miller,  who  was  appointed  by  revelation 
as  Presiding  Bishop  of  the  Church ;  and  the  further 
fact  that  he  was  himself  implicated  as  a  party  in  the 
case,  as  is  evidenced  from  the  statement  of  Brigham 
Young  before  the  court  that  he  accompanied  eight  of 
the  Twelve  when  they  went  to  converse  with  Sidney 
Rigdon,  laboring  with  him — and  upon  the  matters 


APPENDIX.  171 

developed  in  that  labor  these  charges  were  based, 
and  we  have  a  case  equaled  by  none  on  record,  to 
our  knowledge,  for  injustice  and  partiality. 

There  are  many  other  points  of  criticism  that  we 
might  make  on  this  trial,  but  we  forbear.  No  one 
who  reads  the  records  of  those  times  impartially  will 
allow  that  trial  to  have  any  effect  in  passing  judg- 
ment upon  Sidney  Rigdon. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  I  cited  Mr.  Roberts  to 
his  inaccuracy  in  stating  that  William  Smith  was 
expelled  from  the  Church  at  the  time  when  he  was 
simply  suspended  from  exercising  the  functions  of 
his  office;  to  which  Mr.  Roberts  now  replies:  "Sus- 
pended from  exercising  the  functions  of  their  office 
comes  so  preciously  near  suspension  of  fellowship  for 
an  apostle  as  an  apostle,  that  the  Josephite  'Reply' 
is  welcome  to  all  that  exists  in  the  difference." 
—Page  19. 

I  thank  Mr.  Roberts  for  his  liberality  in  this  case, 
and  accept  the  difference  cheerfully. 

In  Mr.  Roberts'  first  edition  he  claims  that  William 
Smith  did  not  teach  the  doctrine  of  lineal  priesthood 
until  1850.  I  showed  from  the  writings  of  one  in 
sympathy  with  Mr.  Roberts'  faith,  that  he  was  teach- 
ing it  in  St.  Louis  in  November,  1845. 

Mr.  Roberts,  on  page  26  of  his  revised  edition, 
acknowledges  his  error,  and  claims  that  his  fault  was 
in  trusting  too  implicitly  in  Josephite  statements  of 
its  own  history.  He  says : 

The  authority  upon  which  the  statement  of  the  text  was  made 
is  from  the  statement  of  Jason  W.  Briggs,  once  a  leading  light 
of  the  "Reorganized  Church,"  and  by  Tullidge  in  his  account  of 


172  APPENDIX. 

the  rise  of  said  Church,  called  the  "first  standard-bearer  of 
Israel's  return."  The  statement  by  Briggs  is  quoted  with 
approval  by  Tullidge,  and  Tullidge's  History  here  quoted  is 
"Published  by  the  Board  of  Publication  of  the  Reorganized 
Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints."  (See  title  page 
Life  of  Joseph  the  Prophet  by  Tullidge,  Piano  edition,  1880.) 
Following  is  the  passage  in  question : 

"In  the  general  disorder  that  prevailed  from  the  death  of  Joseph 
Smith,  here  and  there  appeared  a  gleam  of  light  and  hope — a 
manifestation  of  the  Spirit  that  all  was  not  lost.  Many  ran  to 
and  fro  in  the  character  of  prophets  and  shepherds.  Among 
those  appeared  William  Smith,  who  in  the  spring  of  1850,  called 
a  conference  at  Covington,  Kentucky;  from  which  time  he  vis- 
ited many  of  the  branches  and  scattered  Saints,  teaching  lineal 
priesthood,  as  applying  to  the  Presidency  of  the  Church;  and 
thus  disposing  of  all  pretenders  already  arisen,  or  to  rise  out  of 
the  posterity  of  the  original  President  of  the  Church.  This 
principle,  though  pretty  clearly  shown  in  the  books,  had  been 
almost  entirely  overlooked  or  forgotten  by  the  Saints;  but  when 
their  attention  was  then  called  to  it  many  at  once  accepted  it  as 
the  solution  of  the  question  of  Presidency."— (Page  576.) 

This  quotation  is  not  accurate;  but  the  most  dam- 
aging mistake  made  is  in  changing  the  word  thus  to 
then.  The  quotation  as  it  reads  in  the  work  from 
which  Mr.  Roberts  quoted  is : 

This  principle,  though  pretty  clearly  shown  in  the  books,  had 
been  almost  entirely  overlooked  or  forgotten  by  the  Saints;  but, 
when  their  attention  was  thus  called  to  it,  many  at  once  received 
it  as  the  solution  of  the  question  of  Presidency.  (See  page  576, 
Tullidge's  History.) 

A  mistake  like  this  might  occur  without  design ;  but 
when  it  is  a  mistake  made  to  favor  a  theory  that  he 
is  just  at  that  time  urging,  it  looks  suspicious.  Mr. 
Roberts  was  trying  to  maintain  that  then,  in  1850,  was 
ihe  first  time,  according  to  Josephite  history,  that 
William  Smith  taught  the  doctrine  of  lineal  priest- 


APPENDIX.  173 

hood ;  and  by  changing  the  word  thus  to  make  it  read 
then  it  would  favor  his  point.  What  makes  it  more 
suspicious  than  before  is  that  he  quotes  from  the 
same  passage  again  on  page  37,  and  there  he 
quotes  it  correctly  and  italicizes  the  word  thus  when 
striving  to  make  the  point  that  it  was  through  William 
Smith's  teaching  that  lineal  priesthood  was  first 
known.  To  make  one  point  he  changes  the  reading 
by  substituting  another  word ;  to  make  another  point 
he  emphasizes  the  original  word,  probably  forgetting 
his  former  effort.  There  is  nothing  in  the  quotation 
from  Elder  Briggs  to  intimate  that  William  Smith 
had  not  taught  lineal  priesthood  prior  to  the  Coving - 
ton  conference. 

In  his  first  edition  in  speaking  of  Lyman  Wight, 
he  made  the  positive  statement : 

In  the  latter  part  of  August,  1844,  President  Young  desired 
him  to  return  to  the  pineries  and  continue  his  labors;  but  he 
refused  and  expressed  a  determination  to  carry  out  his  own  views, 
and  be  the  controller  of  his  own  conduct  regardless  of  the 
counsel  of  the  presiding  quorum.  He  therefore  went  to  Texas 
instead  of  to  Wisconsin,  taking  a  small  company  of  the  Saints 
with  him,  and  settling  in  Texas,  not  far  from  the  present  site  of 
Austin.— Page  26. 

I  showed  that  Lyman  Wight  did  in  fact  go  to  Wis- 
consin at  the  time  when  Mr.  Roberts  says  he  refused 
to  go. 

Now  on  page  28  of  his  second  edition  Mr.  Roberts 
changes  the  text  in  the  body  of  his  work  and  makes 
it  to  read,  "He  therefore  finally  went  to  Texas  instead 
of  to  Wisconsin  to  get  out  timbers  for  the  Temple," 
and  so  forth,  thus  throwing  in  an  explanatory  state- 
ment that  was  not  in  the  first  edition,  and  contending 


174  APPENDIX. 

that  that  was  his  point  in  the  beginning,  that  he  did 
not  go  to  get  out  timbers  for  the  Temple.  If  he 
intended  to  say  that  he  certainly  failed  in  his  inten- 
tions, for  not  an  intimation  of  such  a  thing  is  found 
in  his  first  edition. 

He  then  contends  that  he  was  right  in  his  main 
contention  that  Lyman  Wight  was  not  in  harmony 
with  his  fellow  apostles,  and  that  he  refused  to  follow 
their  counsel,  and  goes  on  to  some  length  to  prove 
this  assertion.  He  might  have  saved  himself  this 
trouble;  for  I  made  no  claim  to  the  contrary.  I  am 
aware  that  he  was  not  in  harmony  with  Brigham 
Young  and  others  and  refused  to  follow  their  coun- 
sel; and  hence  no  testimony  to  that  fact  was  neces- 
sary. 

Again,  Mr.  Roberts  claimed  that  Lyman  "Wight 
lived  in  obscurity  and  died  outside  the  church  of 
Christ  without  a  following.  When  I  showed  that  he 
had  continued  to  have  a  following  to  the  time  of  his 
death;  and  that  many  are  still  following  in  the  line 
of  his  counsel  and  teaching  on  the  doctrine  of  lineal 
priesthood  he  changes  the  text  again,  and  throws  in 
after  the  words,  " without  a  following,"  the  words, 
"worthy  the  name  of  following."  A  very  convenient 
way  for  a  man  to  escape  the  dilemma  of  his  wrong 
conclusions  is  to  change  without  explanation  or  con- 
fession, and  decide  that  thefollowiny  was  not  worthy 
the  name. 

I  do  not  care  in  this  treatise  to  enter  into  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  question  of  worthiness;  and  hence 
leave  the  matter  for  the  reader  to  judge  of  the 
dilemma  a  man  is  in  who  will  thus  change  and  pass 


APPENDIX.  176 

judgment  upon  a  body  of  people  in  order  to  escape 
bhe  error  that  he  has  fallen  into. 

Mr.  Roberts, on  pages  48  and  49,  enters  into  a  labored 
argument  to  show  that  the  revelation  coming  through 
Elder  Deam  required  determination  as  to  who  held 
the  highest  authority  previous  to  the  choosing  of  the 
seven  apostles. 

This  is  not  material;  and  I  have  already  spent 
as  much  time  as  I  care  to  spend  on  this  point.  I  shall 
therefore  be  content  with  quoting  the  words  them- 
selves, and  permitting  the  reader  to  form  his  own 
conclusion.  Here  are  the  words  of  the  communi- 
cation : 

Verily,  thus  saith  the  Lord,  as  I  said  unto  my  servant  Moses, 
"See  thou  do  all  things  according  to  the  pattern,"  so  say  I  unto 
you.  Behold,  the  pattern  is  before  you.  It  is  my  will  that  you 
respect  authority  in  my  church;  therefore  let  the  greatest 
among  you  preside  at  your  conference.  Let  three  men  be 
appointed  by  the  conference  to  select  seven  men  from  among 
you,  who  shall  compose  a  majority  of  the  Twelve  Apostles;  for 
it  is  my  will  that  that  quorum  should  not  be  filled  up  at  present. 
Let  the  president  of  the  conference,  assisted  by  two  others, 
ordain  them.  (The  senior  of  them  shall  preside.)  Let  them 
select  twelve  men  from  among  you,  and  ordain  them  to  compose 
my  High  Council.  Behold,  ye  understand  the  order  of  the 
Bishopric,  the  Seventy,  the  Elders,  the  Priests,  Teachers  and 
Deacons.  These  organize  according  to  the  pattern.  Behold,  I 
will  be  with  you  unto  the  end;  even  so,  Amen.  (See  Church 
History,  vol.  3,  pp.  217,  218.) 

It  will  be  seen  from  this,  that  while  the  one  holding 
the  greatest  authority  before  the  conference  was  to 
preside  at  the  conference,  it  was  the  senior  of  the 
seven  who  was  to  act  as  the  President  of  the  Church. 

There  is  another  point  referred  to  by  Mr.  Roberts 


176  APPENDIX. 

on  page  49  of  his  revised  version  which  may  need  a 
more  extended  notice.  In  his  first  edition  he  said : 

We  have  now  followed  the  history  of  the  Reorganized  Church 
as  far  as  it  is  necessary.  It  only  remains  to  remark  that  it  is  a 
stream  formed  by  the  confluence  of  two  other  streams;  one  of 
which,  represented  by  Mr.  Gurley  and  his  following,  flows  from 
Strangism;  and  the  other,  represented  by  Mr.  Briggs  and  his 
following,  flows  from  the  Church  organized  by  William  Smith. 
We  leave  it  for  Josephites  to  inform  us  on  what  principle  of 
philosophy  two  corrupt,  apostate  streams  by  uniting,  make  a 
pure  one! 

On  this  I  commented  as  follows : 

This  conclusion  is  evidently  based  upon  the  supposition  that 
when  parties  come  out  of  one  organization  to  affiliate  with 
another,  the  one  they  leave  becomes  a  part  of  the  one  to  which 
they  adhere. 

How  profound!  According  to  this  philosophy  the  Church 
organized  by  Joseph  Smith  and  others  from  1830  to  1835,  was  a 
stream  formed  by  the  confluence  of  several  other  streams  issuing 
from  the  several  sectarian  Churches.  (See  page  34.) 

In  his  rejoinder  Mr.  Roberts  seeks  to  ingeniously 
avoid  the  consequence  of  this  false  philosophy  of  his 
by  turning  the  controversy  upon  a  point  that  was  not 
even  hinted  at  in  his  first  supposition  and  says : 

Not  at  all.  The  circumstances  are  wholly  different.  When 
the  Lord  in  the  first  vision  to  the  Prophet  Joseph  announced  his 
rejection  of  all  sectarian  Churches  there  had  to  be  a  restoration 
of  divine  authority,  and  hence  sent  John  the  Baptist,  Peter, 
James,  and  John,  and  others  to  restore  that  authority;  and  all 
who  left  the  several  sectarian  Churches,  received  the  gospel  and 
divine  authority  through  this  new  dispensation  of  authority 
from  heaven,  and  hence  in  the  new  Church  thus  formed  there 
was  no  taint  of  the  old  sects  from  which  they  had  emerged — or, 
in  other  words,  no  flaw  in  their  claims  to  divine  authority. 

This  is  quite  fairly  stated,  but  it  is  foreign  to  the 
point  Mr.  Roberts  raised  in  his  first  edition.  The  cir- 


APPENDIX.  177 

cumstanoes  so  far  as  they  relate  to  his  first  conten- 
tion are  exactly  parallel. 

God  by  revelation  "announced  his  rejection  of  all 
sectarian  Churches."  He  authorized  the  organiza- 
tion of  another  and  many  came  out  of  them  and 
united  with  the  new  Church  thus  formed.  They 
brought  with  them  no  taint  of  the  old,  but  built  on 
divine  authority  before  restored  through  Joseph 
Smith  the  Seer,  and  others. 

Again  God  by  revelation  "announced  his  rejection" 
of  the  Churches  under  James  J.  Strang,  William 
Smith,  and  others.  He  authorized  the  forming  of 
another  organization,  and  some  came  out  of  these 
rejected  organizations  and  united  with  the  one  thus 
formed.  They  brought  with  them  no  taint  of  the  old, 
but  built  on  divine  authority  before  restored  through 
Joseph  Smith  the  Seer,  and  others.  The  Church 
organized  from  1830  to  1835  was  the  successor  of  a 
Church  once  acknowledged  of  God,  but  rejected  on 
account  of  transgression,  though  authorized  sectarian 
Churches  had  intervened  between,  and  it  was  in  fact 
a  reorganization. 

The  Reorganized  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter 
Day  Saints  was  the  successor  of  a  Church  once 
acknowledged  of  God,  but  rejected  on  account  of 
transgression,  though  unauthorized  sects  had  inter- 
vened between.  In  both  cases  members  entering  into 
the  new  organizations  renounced  all  allegiance  to 
these  unauthorized  sects,  and  repudiated  all  authority 
claimed  by  them.  Then  the  cases  are  parallel,  and  if 
one  was  formed  by  the  confluence  of  corrupt,  apostate 
streams,  so  was  the  other. 


.*»  APPENDIX. 

But  as  Mr.  Roberts  has  sought  to  turn  our  atten- 
tion from  the  above  to  the  questions  of  authority, 
Church  organization  and  rejection,  let  us  follow  him 
in  his  flight.  He  adds : 

But  with  the  Josephite  reorganizes  it  is  different.  They 
claim  that  the  Church  founded  by  the  Prophet  Joseph  was 
rejected  of  God,  together  with  its  dead.  ...  If  that  were  true, 
then  its  actions  were  repudiated,  its  authority  was  gone;  and 
the  only  way  it  could  be  regained  would  be  by  a  reopening  oi 
the  heavens,  and  a  restoration  of  the  priesthood  as  in  the  dis- 
pensation of  the  gospel  received  by  Joseph  the  Prophet. 

Then  by  endeavoring  to  hold  the  Reorganization  to 
the  philosophy  of  his  own  conclusions  Mr.  Roberts 
argues  that  the  men  instrumental  in  its  formation 
were  inconsistent  in  proceeding  to  reorganize  without 
a  restoration  of  divine  authority. 

Mr.  Roberts'  error  consists  in  supposing  that 
authority  is  contingent  upon  Church  organization, 
and  hence  when  an  organization  is  rejected  all 
authority  is  gone.  He  is  evidently  wrong  in  this,  for 
authority  preceded  Church  organization  and  hence 
could  exist  when  said  organization  was  rejected. 
Joseph  Smith  and  Oliver  Cowdery  were  ordained  and 
authorized  to  administer  in  the  priesthood  before 
there  was  a  Church,  and  by  the  authority  thus 
bestowed  the  Church  organization  was  effected. 

So  priesthood  may  exist  independent  of  Church 
organization,  and  hence  could  be  retained  by  indi- 
viduals after  the  organization  was  rejected.  I  would 
like  to  suggest  to  Mr.  Roberts  that  if  he  will  change 
his  premises  and  instead  of  arguing  from  the  prem- 
ises that  authority  is  contingent  upon  organization, 
argue  from  the  premises  that  organization  is  contin- 


APPENDIX.  179 

gent  upon  authority,  his  logical  brain  will  lead  him  to 
safer  conclusions. 

Further,  though  the  priesthood  held  by  Briggs, 
Gurley,  Deam,  et  a?.,  was  doubtless  good  and 
accepted  of  God,  they  did  not  proceed  in  the  impor- 
tant matter  of  organization  until  so  directed  by  reve- 
lation from  God.  So  as  far  as  that  particular  act 
was  concerned  the  authority  was  restored. 

On  page  53  Mr.  Roberts  again  concedes  that 
he  was  mistaken  in  setting  the  date  of  Lyman 
Wight's  advocacy  of  lineal  priesthood  at  1850;  but 
he  still  contends  "that  this  question  of  'Young 
Joseph's'  claims  to  the  Presidency  was  not  mooted  in 
the  controversy  over  the  Presidency  at  Nauvoo  in 
August,  1844,  the  time  of  all  times  for  those  who 
knew  anything  of  the  subject  to  have  spoken." 

In  my  reply  I  presented  the  fact  that  William  Smith 
and  Lyman  Wight  preached  lineal  descent  so  soon 
after  their  difference  with  others  of  the  Twelve  as  to 
make  it  strong  presumptive  evidence  that  this  was 
one  of  the  points  of  difference.  We  invited  attention 
to  the  fact  that  the  real  points  of  difference  were 
never  published ;  that  the  Church  papers  were  silent 
upon  the  point;  and  that  neitheV  William  Smith  nor 
Lyman  Wight  had  an  opportunity  to  preserve  their 
opinions  in  any  periodical  of  the  times.  Mr.  Roberts 
ignores  all  this,  and  still  asserts  that  they  and  all 
others  were  silent  upon  this  point. 

Fortunately,  since  the  publication  of  our  reply,  the 
evidence  has  come  to  our  hand  which  removes  all 
possible  doubt;  and  it  is  not  necessary  for  us  to 
stand  upon  this  presumption,  plain  though  it  may  be. 


180  APPENDIX. 

We  have  before  us  a  letter  written  by  James  Blakes- 
lee  to  Jacob  Scott,  dated  Hampton,  Rock  Island 
County,  Illinois,  August  16,  1844,  just  eight  days 
after  the  memorable  meeting  on  August  8  on  which 
so  much  has  been  said,  and  at  which  time  so  much 
was  said  regarding  Presidency  and  leadership.  He 
says: 

But  alas,  -what  a  change  one  year  has  made.  Even  the  space 
of  about  one  year,  or  a  little  more,  has  successfully  introduced 
into  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints,  a  sufficient 
amount  of  false  doctrine,  to  deceive  and  lead  away  nearly  all  the 
Church  at  Nauvoo,  while  the  Prophet  and  Patriarch  of  the 
Church  have  been  barbarously  murdered  by  the  hand  of  a  gang 
of  demons  in  human  shape.  Thus  you  see,  sir,  that  the  Church 
is  left  without  an  earthly  head,  unless  the  promise  of  the  Lord 
shall  be  fulfilled,  which  saith,  that  if  he  removed  Joseph,  he 
would  appoint  another  in  his  stead.-  But  as  this  has  not  yet 
been  done,  what  is  the  Church  to  do?  Now  sir,  if  I  have  been 
correctly  informed,  some  of  the  members  of  the  Church  at  Nau- 
voo, want  Stephen  Markham  for  their  head,  and  others  Sidney 
Rigdon,  and  others  President  Marks,  and  others  little  Joseph, 
and  others  B.  Young,  and  some  others  P.  P.  Pratt,  and  if  they 
can  all  have  their  choice,  we  shall  soon  have  a  multiplicity  of 
Churches  of  Latter  Day  Saints. 

It  appears  that  Elder  Blakeslee  was  not  present  at 
Nauvoo ;  but  that  in  about  one  week  after  that  meet- 
ing word  had  reached  him  of  the  controversy  over 
leadership  at  Nauvoo,  and  that  in  that  controversy 
young  Joseph's  name  was  mentioned  with  others. 
This  sets  aside  effectually  and  positively  the  state- 
ment of  Elder  Roberts  that  young  Joseph's  claims 
to  the  Presidency  were  not  mooted  in  the  con- 
troversy. 

Mr.  Roberts  thinks  I  might  have  added  some  inter- 


APPENDIX.  181 

esting  information  in  connection  with  my  extract 
from  the  Gospel  Herald  regarding  the  position  of 
Lyman  Wight  on  lineal  priesthood  had  I  quoted  John 
E.  Page  in  that  connection.  Doubtless  it  might  be 
interesting  information,  but  it  is  not  material  to  the 
point  in  discussion.  I  was  only  attempting  to  show 
that  William  Smith  and  Lyman  Wight  taught  lineal 
priesthood.  I  was  aware  that  John  E.  Page  did  not. 
His  opinion  has  no  more  bearing  upon  the  point  as 
to  what  William  Smith  and  Lyman  Wight  taught 
than  has  the  opinion  of  Young,  Kimball,  or  Pratt. 

Mr.  Roberts  undertook  to  show  a  discrepancy  in 
the  testimony  regarding  the  blessing  of  President 
Joseph  Smith,  a  part  of  the  testimony  going  to  show 
that  he  was  blessed  in  Liberty  Jail,  and  a  part  to 
show  that  he  was  blessed  soon  after  coming  out  of 
Liberty  Jail.  I  showed  that  he  was  several  times 
blessed  to  the  same  effect.  All  Mr.  Roberts  has  to 
say  in  his  late  edition  is  to  ask  how  many  times  it  is 
necessary  that  young  Joseph  should  be  blessed, 
appointed,  and  ordained  to  the  same  position  by  the 
same  person.  It  is  not  necessary  for  us  to  answer 
the  question.  It  is  only  necessary  to  show  that  he 
was  actually  blessed  at  different  times  and  places, 
and  this  I  have  clearly  shown.  The  question  of 
necessity  should  be  asked  of  those  who  participated 
in  this  blessing. 

Mr.  Roberts  makes  a  labored  effort  to  show  a  con- 
flict between  Elder  Whitehead  and  others  because 
Elder  Whitehead  calls  this  blessing  an  ordination 
while  others  do  not.  It  is  not  necessary  to  occupy 
space  in  arguing  this.  President  Joseph  Smith 


182  APPENDIX. 

explains  it  sufficiently  clear  in  the  quotation  which 
Mr.  Roberts  himself  inserts;  he  says,  "This  blessing 
has  by  some  been  called  an  ordination,  from  the  usual 
predilection  to  confound  names  and  terms." 

The  evidence  shows  that  the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith 
laid  his  hands  at  different  times  upon  the  head  of  his 
son  and  blessed  him,  declaring  that  he  would  succeed 
him  in  his  position  in  the  Church.  That  is  all  we 
claim.  We  have  not  taken  a  position  as  to  whether 
priesthood  was  conferred  or  not;  simply  that  in  fulfill- 
ment of  the  revelation  he  designated  who  the  suc- 
cessor should  be.  In  the  sense  of  an  appointment  it 
may  be  called  an  ordination. 

Mr.  Roberts  thinks  it  very  strange  that  young 
Joseph  was  set  apart  before  the  congregation  where 
there  were  thousands  present,  and  that  that  congre- 
gation accepted  him,  and  yet  Mr.  Whitehead  is  the 
"sole  witness."  He  thinks  it  very  reasonable  that 
others  in  that  congregation  would  have  remembered 
it,  and  would  have  contended  at  the  time  that  he  was 
the  rightful  successor.  The  strangeness  of  it  is 
admitted;  and  one  wonders  why  if  true  that  the 
efforts  of  Brigham  Young  were  successful  with  so 
many.  But  we  have  the  positive  testimony  that  Mr. 
Whitehead  was  not  the  "sole  witness,"  and  that 
young  Joseph's  claims  were  advocated  by  some,  I 
know  not  how  many,  in  August,  1844,  as  evidenced 
from  the  letter  of  Elder  Blakeslee  before  quoted. 

John  H.  Carter,  of  near  Provo  City,  Utah,  in  his 
testimony  in  the  Temple  Lot  Suit  said : 

I  was  present  at  a  meeting  in  the  city  of  Nauyoo,  in  the  state  of 
Illinois,  at  which  something  was  said  or  done  about  the  successor 


APPENDIX.  183 

of  Joseph  Smith.  It  was  held  in  the  Bowery,  right  north  of  the 
Temple,  and  Joseph  Smith  was  on  the  stand.  I  can  not  tell  you 
when  it  was,  but  it  was  not  long  before  he  was  killed.  This  hap- 
pened in  Nauvoo,  in  the  Bowery  that  was  erected  right  north  of 
the  Temple,  where  they  held  meetings  before  the  Temple  was 
finished.  Yes  sir,  Joseph  Smith  who  was  called  Junior,  was  on 
the  stand.  It  was  on  a  Sunday.  There  was  a  congregation 
gathered  there  on  that  occasion ;  it  was  a  large  gathering.  It 
was  the  people  mostly  from  Nauvoo  who  had  gathered  there, 
and  when  they  got  together  on  these  occasions  there  was  a  large 
gathering.  .  .  . 

Joseph  Smith  came  on  the  stand  leading  his  son,  young 
Joseph,  and  they  sat  him  down  on  a  bench  at  the  Prophet's 
right  hand,  and  Joseph  got  up  and  began  to  preach  and  talk  to 
the  people,  and  the  question  he  said  was  asked  by  somebody, 
"If  Joseph  Smith  should  be  killed  or  die,  who  would  be  his  suc- 
cessor?" And  he  turned  around  and  said,  pointing  to  his  son, 
"There  is  the  successor,"  and  he  went  on  and  said,  "My  work  is 
pretty  nearly  done,"  and  that  is  about  all  he  said  in  regard  to 
his  son.  He  said  in  answer  to  a  question  that  was  asked  as  to 
who  should  be  his  successor  in  case  he  should  be  killed  or  die, 
and  he  pointed  to  his  son,  young  Joseph,  who  was  sitting  there 
at  his  side,  and  said  he:  "There  is  your  leader." 

My  father-in-law  was  with  me  at  the  time,  and  sat  there  and 
heard  what  was  said,  and  when  we  were  going  home  my  father- 
in-law  asked,  "What  does  that  mean?"  He  said,  "That  has  got 
a  meaning  to  it,  from  the  way  Joseph  talked  and  pointed  to  his 
son,"  because  Joseph  had  said,  "There  is  your  leader,"  pointing 
at  the  time  to  his  son,  and  my  father-in-law  said,  "We  will  see 
the  fulfillment  of  that  by  and  by." 

It  was  the  understanding  of  the  people  generally,  of  the 
Church  as  far  as  I  know;  all  understood  it  from  that  day  on 
that  when  the  boy  Joseph  came  of  age  he  would  take  the  lead  in 
the  Church  and  be  its  head.  There  were  a  great  many  people 
who  believed  that,  and  moreover,  President  Young  preached  it 
himself  for  some  time  after  he  came  into  the  valley.  That  was 
the  belief  of  hundreds  and  thousands;  was  the  belief  then,  and 
is  the  belief  now. 


184  APPENDIX. 

I  have  always  believed  that  ever  since  I  heard  Joseph  say  the 
words  I  have  stated,  ever  since  I  saw  his  father  point  him  out; 
and  I  believe  it  to-day  just  as  strongly  as  I  ever  did,  and  it  was 
under  that  belief  that  I  have  followed  President  Young  west 
with  the  branch  of  the  Church  now  known  as  the  Salt  Lake 
branch.  That  was  the  teaching  and  the  ideas  held  out  by  the 
officers  and  elders,  including  Brigham  Young  and  other  promi- 
nent elders  of  the  Church,  who  afterwards  came  west  and  located 
here  at  Salt  Lake  City;  and  it  was  the  teaching  in  Utah  Terri- 
tory for  several  years  after  the  death  of  Joseph  Smith.  Here  in 
Salt  Lake  City  they  publicly  taught  and  held  out  the  idea  to  the 
members  of  the  Church  that  Joseph  Smith  the  son  of  Joseph 
Smith,  Jr.,  would  eventually  be  the  President  of  the  Church. — 
Plaintiff's  Abstract,  pp.  180,  181. 

This  testimony  corroborates  in  the  main  features 
the  statements  made  by  Elder  Whitehead;  and  also 
accounts  for,  what  otherwise  would  seem  strange, 
how  Brigham  Young  succeeded  so  well.  Thousands, 
according  to  Mr.  Carter,  accepted  his  teachings 
because  he  held  out  the  idea  that  young  Joseph 
would  be  the  proper  person  to  take  the  leadership  of 
the  Church  when  he  became  of  age. 

This  testimony  of  Elders  Whitehead  and  Carter  is 
strengthened  by  the  testimony  of  Charles  Derry,  W. 
W.  Phelps,  Alpheus  Cutler,  P.  P.  Pratt,  D.  S.  Mills, 
Lucy  Smith,  George  Miller,  Louis  Gaulter,  Harriet  E. 
Gaulter,  Arthur  Milliken,  and  A.  B.  Moore,  as  set 
forth  in  our  former  reply. 

Mr.  Roberts  in  his  former  reply  presented  the 
claim  of  Brigham  Young  that  Hyrum  Smith  was 
appointed  by  Joseph  as  his  successor.  I  met  this  by 
saying  that  if  this  claim  be  true  it  would  destroy  the 
prophetic  character  of  Joseph  Smith,  as  it  failed 
of  fulfillment.  Mr.  Roberts  can  not  see  how  it 


APPENDIX.  185 

would  affect  the  prophetio  character  of  Joseph  Smith. 
I  do  not  know  how  to  make  it  plainer.  If  Joseph 
Smith  said  Hyrum  would  be  his  successor  and 
Hyrum  fell  in  death  before  he  did,  it  shows  beyond 
controversy  that  Joseph  Smith  was  deceived  in  set- 
ting apart  as  his  successor  a  man  whom  God  never 
intended  to  succeed  him.  If  this  does  not  affect  the 
evidence  of  his  prophetio  calling  I  do  not  know  what 
would. 

Again,  if  Joseph  Smith  set  Hyrum  apart  as  his 
successor,  where  is  the  consistency  in  the  claim  that 
he  provided  that  the  Twelve  should  succeed  him  by 
conferring  upon  them  all  the  keys  and  responsibilities 
which  he  had  himself  held? 

Elder  Orson  Hyde  in  his  testimony  before  the 
Bishop's  court  that  tried  Sidney  Rigdon,  makes  a 
pertinent  statement  on  this  point.  It  is  as  follows: 

Now  why  did  he  say  to  the  Twelve  on  YOUR  shoulders  will  this 
responsibility  rest,  why  did  he  not  mention  Bro.  Hyrum?  The 
Spirit  knew  that  Hyrum  would  be  taken  with  him,  and  hence  he 
did  not  mention  his  name;  Elder  Rigdon's  name  was  not  men- 
tioned, although  he  was  here  all  the  time,  but  he  did  not  attend 
our  councils. — Times  and  Seasons,  vol.  5,  p.  651. 

Here  is  a  direct  conflict  between  Elders  Young  and 
Hyde,  Elder  Young  stating  that  Joseph  did  ordain 
Hyrum  as  his  successor,  and  Elder  Hyde  stating  that 
Joseph  did  not  mention  him  because  the  Spirit  knew 
that  Hyrum  would  be  taken  with  him.  Can  Mr. 
Roberts  or  any  other  advocate  of  that  theory  recon- 
cile these  statements? 

On  page  79  Mr.  Roberts  states  that  I  had  no  other 
means  of  escape  from  certain  conclusions  only  to 


186  APPENDIX. 

throw  discredit  upon  passages  in  the  history  of  the 
Prophet,  because  I  questioned  the  genuineness  of 
some  publications  issued  by  the  Utah  Church. 

It  was  not  the  writer  of  the  "Reply"  that  threw 
discredit  upon  the  history  of  the  Church  as  published 
by  the  Utah  people ;  but  that  discredit  has  been  the 
result  of  their  own  acts.  In  the  face  of  the  facts  it 
will  avail  nothing  for  Mr.  Roberts  to  call  references 
to  this  subject  "contemptible  Josephite  quibbling." 

The  late  Elder  Charles  W.  Wandell,  who  in  1845 
was  employed  in  the  historian's  office  in  Nauvoo,  in 
speaking  of  the  purported  writings  of  Joseph  Smith 
the  Seer,  notices  some  interpolations  and  then 
remarks : 

I  notice  these  interpolations  because  having  been  employed 
(myself)  in  the  historian's  office  at  Nauvoo  by  Doctor  Richards, 
and  employed  too,  in  1845,  in  compiling  this  very  autobiography, 
I  know  that  after  Joseph's  death  his  memoir  was  "doctored"  to 
suit  the  new  order  of  things,  and  this  too  by  the  direct  order  of 
Brigham  Young  to  Doctor  Richards,  and  systematically  by 
Richards. — From  manuscript  in  my  possession. 

I  presume  Mr.  Roberts  will  resort  to  his  usual  tao- 
tics,  and  say  that  Elder  Wandell  had  lost  his  honor 
when  he  offered  this  statement;  but  he  will  hardly 
claim  that  George  A.  Smith  and  Wilford  Woodruff 
had  lost  their  honor  when  they  stated  the  following 
as  found  on  page  5  of  the  preface  to  the  first 
volume  of  Church  History  as  published  by  the  Utah 
Church,  in  1902: 

The  history  of  Joseph  Smith  is  now  before  the  world,  and  we 
are  satisfied  that  a  history  more  correct  in  its  details  than  this 
was  never  published.  To  have  it  strictly  correct,  the  greatest 
possible  pains  have  been  taken  by  the  historians  and  clerks 


APPENDIX.  187 

engaged  in  the  work.  They  were  eye  and  ear  witnesses  of 
nearly  all  the  transactions  recorded  in  this  history,  most  of 
which  were  reported  as  they  transpired,  and,  where  they  were 
not  personally  present,  they  have  had  access  to  those  who  were. 
Moreover,  since  the  death  of  the  Prophet  Joseph,  the  history 
has  been  carefully  revised  under  the  strict  inspection  of  Presi- 
dent Brigham  Young,  and  approved  by  him.  We,  therefore, 
hereby  bear  our  testimony  to  all  the  world,  unto  whom  these 
words  shall  come,  that  the  history  of  Joseph  Smith  is  true,  and 
is  one  of  the  most  authentic  histories  ever  written. 

This  certainly  agrees  with  the  statement  of  Elder 
Wandell,  and  is  a  confession  published  by  themselves 
that  the  history  of  Joseph  Smith  was  carefully 
revised  under  the  inspection  of  Brigham  Young. 
Who,  then,  was  it  that  threw  discredit  upon  the  genu- 
ineness of  history  as  published  in  Utah?  When  we 
state  that  its  genuineness  is  questionable  we  state 
just  what  their  confession  shows. 

Mr.  Roberts  quotes  an  action  of  the  conference  of 
October,  1844,  sustaining  Brigham  Young  as  one  of 
the  Twelve  and  First  Presidency  of  the  Church,  and 
asks,  "Can  there  be  any  doubt  but  what  this  was 
practically  the  same  as  that  of  the  eighth  of  August?" 
We  answer,  Yes,  there  can  be  and  is  doubt.  The 
whole  history  of  the  transaction  shows  that  they  ven- 
tured a  little  farther  each  succeeding  time  that  the 
case  was  mentioned. 

On  page  74  Mr.  Roberts  misrepresents  us  by  con- 
veying the  idea  that  we  had  taken  a  position  that 
lineal  priesthood  as  applied  to  the  Presidency  was  an 
invariable  rule,  subject  to  no  contingencies;  whereas 
I  stated  our  position  clearly  on  page  50  of  my  first 
edition,  that  "the  son's  right  to  his  father's  position 


188  APPENDIX. 

is  contingent  upon  these  conditions,  and  that  God 
alone  is  a  competent  judge  of  ability  and  worthiness, 
we  hold  that  no  man  should  be  ordained  to  any 
office  without  a  call  from  God."  Our  position  was 
that  all  other  things  being  equal,  God  had  determined 
that  the  son  should  succeed  to  his  father's  place;  but 
not  alone  by  virtue  of  his  lineage,  but  that  he  to 
occupy  must  be  called  of  God,  as  God  alone  was  the 
judge  of  availability  and  worthiness. 

I  repeat  that  we  do  not  know  why  Hyrum  Smith, 
an  elder  son  than  Joseph  the  Seer,  was  not  chosen. 
He  probably  had  the  right  of  lineage;  but  God  called 
Joseph,  that  is  sufficient.  Why  should  Elder  Roberts 
contend  upon  this  point  when  it  is  not  the  point  at 
issue  between  us?  The  issue  is  not  regarding  the 
first  or  second  son  but  regarding  lineage  as  applying 
to  the  Presidency  at  all. 

On  page  75  Elder  Roberts  repeats  his  challenge  to 
produce  a  purported  revelation  through  Joseph  Smith, 
President  of  the  Reorganization,  that  he  was  called  to 
the  position.  I  do  not  know  how  to  convey  an  idea  to 
the  mind  of  Mr.  Roberts  if  I  have  not  done  so  upon  this 
point.  We  cited  him  to  the  revelation  given  through 
Jason  W.  Briggs,  to  the  effect  that  the  seed  of  Joseph 
Smith  was  to  come  forth  and  preside  over  the  high 
priesthood  of  the  Church;  and  in  connection  we  have 
a  revelation  given  to  Joseph  Smith  indorsing  that 
organization  at  Zarahemla.  If  the  revelation  in- 
dorsed that  organization  it  indorsed  the  position  on 
which  it  stood,  that  the  seed  of  Joseph  Smith  the 
Seer  was  to  preside  over  the  high  priesthood  of  the 
Church. 


APPENDIX.  180 

Again,  when  he  went  to  Amboy,  in  1860,  to  assume 
that  position,  he  said,  "I  have  come  in  obedience  to 
a  power  not  my  own,  and  shall  be  dictated  by  the 
power  that  sent  me."  To  occupy  space  upon  this 
point  would  be  useless.  Though  Mr.  Roberts  may 
not  understand  this  language,  I  am  sure  that  the 
majority  of  our  readers  can. 

On  pages  77  and  78  Mr.  Roberts  quotes  a  purported 
statement  of  Joseph  Smith  as  published  in  Millennial 
titar,  volume  22,  as  follows :  *  'We  have  a  Judas  in  our 
midst;  whatever  can  be  the  matter  with  these  men?" 
and  throws  into  the  midst  of  this  quotation  his  own 
words  as  follows:  "This  appears  to  have  had  an 
unpleasant  effect  upon  the  minds  of  some  leading  men 
in  the  Church,  especially  upon  the  minds  of  William 
Law  and  William  Marks,  who  complain  before  the 
mayor's  court  about  the  action  of  these  special 
police." 

By  what  authority  does  Mr.  Roberts  say  that  these 
were  William  Law  and  William  Marks?  True,  their 
names  are  mentioned  further  on  in  this  purported 
quotation;  but  not  in  the  connection  in  which  Mr. 
Roberts  places  them.  It  must  be  remembered,  too, 
that  at  the  time  the  history  of  Joseph  Smith  was  care- 
fully revised  under  the  inspection  of  Brigham  Young 
he  had  a  controversy  with  William  Marks  that  might 
have  induced  him  to  write  his  name  into  the  revised 
history. 

In  the  following  pages  Mr.  Roberts  again  takes  up 
the  argument  of  the  lesser  ordaining  the  greater,  and 
represents  us  as  taking  the  position  that  the  lesser 
ordains  the  greater  by  virtue  of  its  position  in  the 


190  APPENDIX. 

priesthood.  This  is  not  and  has  never  been  the  posi- 
tion of  the  Reorganization.  Our  position  has  been 
that  a  command  of  God  is  sufficient  authority  for  an 
ordination ;  and  that  if  one  holding  the  lesser  posi- 
tion is  directed  to  ordain  a  man  to  a  higher  position 
than  that  which  he  himself  holds,  it  is  legitimate  for 
him  to  do  so.  Our  position  upon  this  point  has 
recently  been  conceded  by  the  editors  of  the  Juvenile 
Instructor,  of  which  Joseph  F.  Smith,  President  of 
the  Utah  Church,  is  the  chief  editor.  In  commenting 
upon  the  ordination  of  the  Twelve  in  1835,  the  editors 
of  this  periodical  say  in  the  issue  for  March  1,  1902 ; 

This  proceeding  is  strong  evidence  of  the  fact  that  the  priest- 
hood is  greater  than  any  of  its  offices;  and  further,  that  any 
man  who  has  received  the  holy  Melchisedec  priesthood  is 
empowered  by  and  through  the  possession  of  that  priesthood  to 
perform  any  ordinance  connected  therewith  when  called  upon  to 
do  so  by  the  proper  authority.  For  this  reason  we  find  in  the 
history  of  the  Church  that  apostles  have  presided  over  stakes  of 
Zion,  at  other  times  they  have  acted  as  traveling  elders  in  the 
foreign  missions  of  the  Chur«h  when  a  high  priest  or  seventy 
has  presided  therein.  It  is  the  duty  of  a  high  priest  to  preside 
at  home,  but  high  priests  are  often  called  to  labor  as  missiona- 
ries abroad,  while  seventies^  whose  special  mission  is  to  preach 
the  gospel  to  the  outside  world,  are  occasionally  called  to  pre- 
side at  home.  Again,  seventies  have  been  authorized  to  ordain 
high  priests  and  high  priests,  seventies.  All  these  apparent 
deviations  from  the  usual  procedure  were  regular  and  proper 
because  every  man  holding  the  Melchisedec  priesthood  has 
within  him  the  latent  power  to  do  all  things  that  that  priesthood 
authorizes,  no  matter  what  office  he  holds;  but  he  has  no  right 
to  depart  from  the  limitations  prescribed  for  his  office  unless  he 
is  specially  called  upon  and  appointed  to  do  so,  either  by  the 
Lord  through  revelation  or  by  the  Lord's  representative,  or 
by  one  holding  an  office  in  the  priesthood  whose  calling 


APPENDIX.  191 

clearly  authorizes  him  to  give  such  instructions  and  special 
authority. 

The  case  in  point  is  one  of  the  evidences  of  the  truth  of  our 
position.  Here  the  Lord  by  revelation  and  by  the  instructions 
of  his  mouthpiece  calls  upon  three  men,  two  of  whom  are  high 
priests,  to  choose  twelve  men  to  form  the  quorum  of  the  Twelve 
Apostles,  and  then  to  ordain  or  set  them  apart  for  this  most 
responsible  and  exalted  calling.  He  did  so  because  they  had  the 
Melchisedec  priesthood  and  in  that  priesthood  was  embraced  the 
necessary  authority  to  perform  this  duty.  We  admit  that  even 
if  it  did  not,  that  the  Lord  himself  could,  if  he  so  pleased,  give 
these  men  extraordinary  and  unusual  powers  on  any  occasion. 
We  have  no  desire  to  limit  the  powers  of  the  Lord. 

If  there  is  any  question  in  the  minds  of  any  as  to 
the  responsibility  of  the  editors  upon  this  point,  the 
following  letter  will  settle  that  question.  I  wrote  the 
Juvenile  Instructor  immediately  after  this  appeared, 
asking  who  was  responsible  for  the  answers  to  ques- 
tions in  the  department  of  "Answers  to  Questions"  in 
the  Juvenile  Instructor,  and  received  the  following : 

SALT  LAKE  CITY,  Utah,  March  13,  1902. 
ELDER  HEMAN  C.  SMITH,  Historian,  Lamoni,  Iowa. 

Dear  Sir:  Your  favor  of  7th  inst.  is  to  hand.  In  reply  I  will 
say,  the  Editors  of  the  Juvenile  Instructor  are  responsible  for 
what  appears  in  its  pages  under  the  caption  of  "Answers  to 
Questions;"  indeed,  by  far  the  greater  portion  is  written  by  one 
of  themselves.  Yours  fraternally, 

JOSEPH  P.  SMITH. 

President  Joseph  P.  Smith  in  the  above  takes  even 
stronger  ground  than  the  Reorganization  has  ever 
taken  in  which  he  sets  forth  that  one  holding  authority 
to  ordain  can  direct  another,  and  that  other  can 
ordain  by  virtue  of  the  authority  thus  delegated. 
Which  is  right,  President  Joseph  F.  Smith  or  Elder 
B.  H.  Roberts  when  the  latter  speaks  of  the  position 


192  APPENDIX. 

of  the  Reorganization  on  this  point  as  "the  untenable 
position,  as  false  in  philosophy  as  it  is  in  fact,  that 
the  lesser  can  ordain  the  greater,  and  the  greater  thus 
accredited  can  ordain  a  still  greater  even  the  greatest 
of  all"? 

On  page  85  (see  also  page  78)  Mr.  Roberts  makes 
one  of  the  most  stupendous  blunders  that  it  has  ever 
been  our  fortune  to  notice  in  a  man  of  ordinary  care- 
fulness in  controversy :  He  states : 

The  "Reply"  writer  seems  to  think  there  was  some  special 
virtue  in  the  fact  that  William  Marks  took  part  in  the  ordination 
of  young  Joseph,  because  Marks  was  a  high  priest  in  the  days  of 
Joseph  the  Prophet.  ("Reply,"  p.  142.)  That  is  disposed  of  by 
the  fact  that  Marks  was  a  follower  of  the  Apostate  Strang  and  a 
member  of  his  apostate  church;  and  "Young  Joseph"  has  said: 
"Whenever  individuals  claiming  authority  under  the  Church  as 
organized  by  the  first  Joseph  became  members  of  any  faction, 
they  immediately  became  divested  of  all  authority."  {Saints' 
Herald,  vol.  4,  no.  10,  p.  158.)  And  since  young  Joseph  is  a 
"prophet"  of  course  that  disposes  of  the  man  who  is  supposed 
to  have  made  assurance  doubly  sure  in  ordaining  him — nay,  of 
the  very  man  who,  I  believe,  was  mouth  at  his  ordination. 

The  above  quotation  made  by  Mr.  Roberts  is  an 
incomplete  one.  It  is  part  of  the  minutes  of  a  special 
conference  held  at  Galland's  Grove,  Iowa,  October 
25  and  26,  1863,  and  does  not  purport  to  give  the 
exact  words  of  the  president  of  the  conference,  but 
says: 

The  president  then  (in  substance)  made  the  following  remarks: 

"All  official  acts  of  any  elder,  while  acting  under  the  authority 
of  the  old  Church,  are  recognized  by  us  as  valid;  but  the  acts  of 
those  elders  who  received  their  authority  from  any  of  the  fac- 
tious organizations,  such  as  Brigham's,  Brewster's,  Strang's, 
etc.,  etc.,  are  not  recognized  by  us  as  valid;  for  whenever  any  of 
those  factions  were  organized,  each  member  received  his 


APPENDIX.  193 

authority  from  that  faction;  hence  whenever  individuals,  claim- 
ing authority  under  the  Church  as  organized  by  the  first  Joseph, 
became  members  of  any  faction,  they  immediately  became 
divested  of  all  authority  except  that  received  from  the  faction 
to  which  they  had  joined  themselves.  Thus  when  Brigham 
Young  usurped  the  Presidency  of  the  Church  at  or  near  Council 
Bluffs,  the  disorganization  of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Lat- 
ter Day  Saints  was  thereby  effected,  and  Brigham's  church  was 
brought  into  existence.  The  same  is  true  of  all  the  factious 
organizations.  Therefore  from  the  time  they  set  up  for  them- 
selves their  acts  in  a  church  capacity  are  spurious." 

So  we  have  not  the  exact  words  used  upon  that 
occasion,  but  the  substance  of  them.  But  the  most 
remarkable  part  of  it  all  is  that  Mr.  Roberts  repre- 
sents it  as  being  the  language  of  "Young  Joseph" 
when  there  fs  nothing  in  the  entire  proceedings  to 
show  that  young  Joseph  was  present;  but  it  is  stated 
in  the  heading  of  the  minutes  that  the  district  was 
under  the  presidency  of  Elder  John  A.  Mclntosh; 
and  the  minutes  are  signed  right  in  the  column  oppo- 
site the  one  from  which  Mr.  Roberts  quotes,  "John 
A.  Mclntosh,  president;  O.  E.  Holcomb,  Nathan 
Lindsay,  clerks."  So  the  president  referred  to  is 
John  A.  Mclntosh,  and  not  "Young  Joseph"  as 
asserted  by  Mr.  Roberts. 

If  the  remarks  were  made  as  reported  in  this 
synopsis,  and  we  grant  they  may  have  been,  for 
Uncle  Johnny  Mclntosh,  as  we  familiarly  called  him, 
though  a  man  of  sterling  integrity,  was  a  man  of 
radical  views,  and  may  have  held  the  view  expressed ; 
it  commits  only  him,  if  anybody,  to  that  position, 
and  not  President  Joseph  Smith.  Mr.  Roberts  makes 
the  blunder  of  referring  to  this  several  times  in  the 


194  APPENDIX. 

course  of  his  reply.  It  is  impossible  for  us  to  deter- 
mine how  he  could  make  such  an  egregious  blunder 
as  this. 

In  the  body  of  his  work,  page  86,  Elder  Roberts 
states  that,  "One  who  succeeds  to  the  position  of  the 
Prophet  Joseph  must  come  in  at  the  gate,  and  be 
ordained  as  the  Lord  had  before  instructed  the 
Church — that  is,  he  must  be  accepted  by  the  Church, 
and  be  ordained  by  the  direction  of  a  general  con- 
ference." But  on  page  105  he  states:  "Brigham 
Young  always  held,  and  is  on  record  from  the  death 
of  the  Prophet,  that  the  keys  of  the  kingdom,  which 
the  Prophet  Joseph  held,  he  bestowed  upon  the 
Twelve,  and  that  to  occupy  any  position  in  the 
Church,  they  needed  no  other  ordination." 

If  Mr.  Roberts  is  right  in  his  statement,  then  Elder 
Young  is  condemned  as  not  being  properly  ordained 
to  the  position  he  held. 

On  page  90  he  states  that  Amasa  Lyman  had  been 
ordained  a  counselor  to  Joseph  Smith  the  Prophet  to 
take  the  place  of  Sidney  Rigdon;  "but  Elder  Lyman 
had  never  been  presented  to  the  people  to  be  sus- 
tained by  their  vote,  and  hence  his  appointment  was 
not  completed,  and  he  had  no  claim  even  to  the 
counselorship  in  the  Presidency." 

If  Elder  Lyman  had  been  ordained  to  the  position 
of  counselor,  and  had  no  claim  because  he  had  not 
been  presented  to  the  people  to  be  sustained,  what 
becomes  of  the  claim  of  the  Twelve  even  though  it  be 
conceded  that  Joseph  appointed  them  to  succeed  him? 
They  had  not  at  that  time  been  presented  to  the  peo- 
ple to  be  sustained  by  their  vote.  If  the  Twelve 


APPENDIX.  195 

could  be  presented  after  the  death  of  Joseph,  why 
would  it  not  have  been  consistent  to  have  presented 
Elder  Lyman  at  the  same  time  instead  of  turning  him 
down  because  he  had  not  been  previously  presented 
to  the  people? 

On  page  86  Mr.  Roberts  makes  the  following  com- 
ment on  the  subject  of  Joseph  Smith  appointing  his 
successor: 

The  "Reply"  writer  seeking  to  combat  the  limitations  of  the 
revelation  here  described,  and  contending  for  a  larger  applica- 
tion of  it,  says:  "To  take  the  position,  as  Mr.  Roberts  does, 
that  Joseph  Smith  was  not  authorized  to  appoint  his  successor 
except  in  the  event  of  transgression,  is  to  make  the  authority  to 
appoint  contingent  upon  transgression."  Nevertheless  such  are 
the  limitations  of  this  particular  revelation,  as  an  inspection  of 
it  wijl  disclose ;  and  at  this  point  it  is  this  particular  revelation 
and  not  the  general  power  of  appointment  which  is  under  con- 
sideration. If  Joseph  Smith  remains  faithful  he  is  to  continue 
God's  mouthpiece  to 'the  Church,  and  none  other  is  to  be 
appointed.  If  he  transgress,  then  he  is  still  to  retain  power 
enough  to  appoint  another  in  his  stead. 

Mr.  Roberts  asserts,  what  the  revelation  clearly 
implies,  that  in  case  of  transgression  he  is  to  retain 
power  to  appoint  his  successor;  it  follows  then  that 
he  had  it  before  the  transgression.  He  could  not 
retain  that  which  he  did  not  have;  and  hence 
his  power  to  appoint  is  not  contingent  upon  his 
transgression. 

Commencing  on  page  93  Mr.  Roberts  enters  into  a 
long  argument  on  the  question  of  Church  rejection. 
I  shall  simply  content  myself  with  quoting  what 
the  Lord  has  said  in  regard  to  it  in  paragraph  10 
and  part  of  paragraph  11,  section  107,  Doctrine  and 
Covenants : 


196  APPENDIX. 

And  again,  verily  I  say  unto  you,  Let  all  my  saints  come  from 
afar;  and  send  ye  swift  messengers,  yea,  chosen  messengers,  and 
say  unto  them,  Come  ye,  with  all  your  gold,  and  your  silver,  and 
your  precious  stones,  and  with  all  your  antiquities ;  and  with  all 
who  have  knowledge  of  antiquities,  that  will  come  may  come, 
and  bring,  the  box-tree,  and  the  fir-tree,  and  the  pine-tree, 
together  with  all  the  precious  trees  of  the  earth ;  and  with  iron, 
with  copper,  and  with  brass,  and  with  zinc,  and  with  all  your 
precious  things  of  the  earth,  and  build  a  house  to  my  name,  for 
the  Most  High  to  dwell  therein ;  for  there  is  not  a  place  found  on 
earth  that  he  may  come  and  restore  again  that  which  was  lost  unto 
you,  or,  which  he  hath  taken  away,  even  the  fullness  of  the 
priesthood;  for  a  baptisimal  font  there  is  not  upon  the  earth; 
that  they,  my  saints,  may  be  baptized  for  those  who  are  dead; 
for  this  ordinance  belongeth  to  my  house,  and  can  not  be  accept- 
able to  me,  only  in  the  days  of  your  poverty,  wherein  ye  are  not 
able  to  build  a  house  unto  me.  But  I  command  you,  all  ye  my 
saints,  to  build  a  house  unto  me;  and  I  grant  unto  you  a  Suffi- 
cient time  to  build  a  house  unto  me,  and  during  this  time  your 
baptisms  shall  be  acceptable  unto  me. 

But,  behold,  at  the  end  of  this  appointment,  your  baptisms  for 
your  dead  shall  not  be  acceptable  unto  me;  and  if  you  do  not 
these  things  at  the  end  of  the  appointment,  ye  shall  be  rejected 
as  a  church  with  your  dead,  saith  the  Lord  your  God. 

If  this  be  true,  that  the  Lord  granted  unto  them  a 
sufficient  time  to  build  a  house,  and  they  failed,  the 
Church  was  rejected;  and  there  is  no  use  of  Mr. 
Roberts  pleading  that  they  did  not  have  time  or 
opportunity,  for  the  decree  had  gone  forth  that  they 
should  have  a  sufficient  time. 

I  introduced  witnesses  in  my  former  reply,  one  of 
them  being  President  Brigham  Young,  to  the  effect 
that  the  temple  was  not  completed.  The  testimony 
of  these  witnesses  Elder  Roberts  has  not  noticed. 
He  says  we  tried  to  bring  him  and  Elder  Charles  W. 


APPENDIX.  197 

Penrose  into  conflict.  "But  there  is  no  conflict." 
Whether  or  not  there  is  a  conflict  we  will  leave  the 
reader  to  judge.  Roberts  says,  "The  temple  was 
completed."  Mr.  Penrose  says:  "There  were 
probably  some  additions  which  would  have  been 
made  to  'complete'  the  edifice  in  the  full  sense  of  the 
term  if  the  builders  had  remained  to  enjoy  it." 

Referring  to  a  point  of  a  personal  nature,  as  Mr. 
Roberts  terms  it  in  his  note  on  page  96,  I  am  still  at  a 
loss  to  understand  Mr.  Roberts.  In  his  former  trea- 
tise he  quoted  from  Pratt's  autobiography  what  pur- 
ported to  be  a  communication  of  the  Spirit  to  Parley 
P.  Pratt  in  1844,  and  used  the  word  organize  where 
the  text  had  it  reorganize.  I  invited  his  attention  to 
this,  and  now  he  says:  "The  copy  of  Pratt's  auto- 
biography in  my  library  is  the  second  edition,  1888, 
and  referring  to  the  passage  again,  I  find  was  quoted 
accurately  by  me,  whatever  difference  may  exist 
between  that  and  any  edition  the  'Reply'  writer  may 
have  quoted." 

I  have  before  me  the  edition  of  1888,  and  the  word 
is  plainly  reorganize  in  that  edition.  Mr.  Roberts 
must  be  mistaken ;  he  did  not  use  the  edition  of  1888 
if  his  book  reads  organize.  I  trust  that  every  one 
who  reads  this,  if  at  all  possible  will  get  the  edition 
of  1888  and  determine  who  has  told  the  truth  in  regard 
to  it. 

In  my  reply  to  Mr.  Roberts  I  showed  how  he  had 
confounded  the  terms  keys  and  oracles,  and  that  the 
words  were  never  synonyms.  This  he  now  virtu- 
ally concedes,  but  attempts  to  get  out  of  the  dilemma 
by  saying  that  this  is  not  the  only  passage  in  which 


198  APPENDIX, 

the  Lord  uses  words  in  his  revelations  outside  the 
technical  sense  in  which  they  are  used  by  lexicogra- 
phers; and  invites  attention  to  the  passage  which 
provides  that  the  Twelve  shall  ordain  evangelical 
ministers  as  they  shall  be  designated  unto  them  by 
revelation.  He  says : 

The  context  clearly  establishes  that  these  "evangelical  minis- 
ters" are  "evangelists,"  or  "patriarchs."  Yet  you  shall  look 
through  your  standard  dictionaries  in  vain  to  find  that  "evan- 
gelist" and  "patriarch"  are  equivalent  terms,  yet  God  here  so 
uses  them. 

Not  quite  so  fast,  Mr.  Roberts.  God  does  not  so 
use  them.  The  word  patriarch  is  not  found  in  the 
quotation.  The  passage  reads  as  follows  : 

It  is  the  duty  of  the  Twelve,  in  all  large  branches  of  the 
Church,  to  ordain  evangelical  ministers,  as  they  shall  be  desig- 
nated unto  them  by  revelation.  (See  Lamoni  edition  of  Doc- 
trine and  Covenants,  section  104,  paragraph  17;  Utah  edition, 
section  107,  paragraph  39.) 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  word  patriarch  is  not 
used.  An  evangelical  minister  may  be  a  patriarch 
according  to  the  definition  given  in  our  standard 
dictionaries.  The  leading  definition  of  the  word 
evangelist  according  to  Webster  is:  "A  bringer  of 
the  glad  tidings  of  Christ  and  his  doctrines."  A 
patriarch  certainly  may  be  and  ought  to  be  that,  and 
could  be  called  according  to  this  definition  an  evan- 
gelical minister.  While  all  evangelists  are  not  patri- 
archs, every  patriarch  ought  to  be  an  evangelist,  or 
"a  bringer  of  the  glad  tidings  of  Christ  and  his  doc- 
trines." So  Mr.  Roberts'  point  here  is  not  well 
taken. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  I  criticised  the  witnesses 


APPENDIX.  199 

of  Mr.  Roberts  whom  he  quotes  to  prove  that  Joseph 
Smith  the  Seer  bestowed  all  the  authority  and  keys 
and  powers  which  he  held  upon  the  Twelve.  I 
showed  that  their  language  differed,  no  two  of  them 
giving  the  same  words,  and  no  one  of  them  relating 
it  twice  alike.  To  which  Mr.  Roberts  replies  on  page 
102  as  follows : 

That  sort  of  quibbling  is  worthy  of  a  tenth  rate  lawyer  just 
beginning  his  career,  or — Josephite  writer.  The  complete 
answer  to  the  contention  is,  that  while  no  two  of  the  witnesses 
give  the  same  words,  and  no  one  of  them,  perhaps,  relating  the 
same  circumstance  twice  employs  the  same  language,  yet  the 
reader  will  see  that  they  do  not  fail  to  make  it  plain  that  all  the 
authority,  and  all  the  keys  of  power  and  priesthood  the  Prophet 
Joseph  himself  held,  he  conferred  upon  the  Twelve;  and  that 
was  perfectly  consistent  with,  and  even  made  necessary  by  the 
revelations  which  provide  that  the  Twelve  shall  be  equal  in 
power  and  authority  with  the  First  Presidency. 

"Were  these  witnesses  relating  in  their  own  language 
an  event  which  each  of  them  saw,  Mr.  Roberts'  point 
would  be  well  taken.  It  is  not  necessary  that  wit- 
nesses should  use  the  same  language  in  describing 
that  which  they  have  seen.  But  when  they  are  quot- 
ing the  language  of  another,  and  undertaking  to  say 
what  another  said,  they  should  agree  as  to  the  words 
used,  or  we  can  not  determine  what  was  said,  and 
will  not  be  able  to  judge  of  the  import.  . 

On  page  104  Mr.  Roberts  inserts  an  additional  testi- 
mony upon  this  point  of  Joseph  Smith  ordaining  the 
Twelve,  namely,  the  testimony  of  William  B.  Smith 
as  given  in  the  Temple  Lot  Suit.  The  following 
answer  which  Elder  William  B.  Smith  acknowledges 
having  been  the  author  of,  is  the  one  upon  which  Mr, 


200  APPENDIX. 

Roberts  relies,  stating  that  this  agrees  with  the  testi- 
mony of  Brigham  Young,'  Orson  Hyde,  and  Wilford 
Woodruff,  to  the  effect  that  Joseph  Smith  the 
Prophet  gave  the  keys  and  authority  which  he  pos- 
sessed to  the  Twelve. 

Following  is  the  matter  referred  to  as  it  appears  in 
an  undated  epistle  of  the  Twelve  and  which  the  wit- 
ness was  asked  to  read : 

PRESIDENT  WILLIAM  SMITH  WAS  ORDAINED  BY  HIS  BROTHER 

JOSEPH  SMITH. 

Previous  to  President  William  Smith's  leaving  Nauvoo,  on  his 
mission  to  the  East,  for  the  last  time  during  the  earthly  exist- 
ence of  his  brothers,  President  Joseph  Smith  ordained  him  a 
Prophet,  Seer,  Revelator,  and  Translator,  and  then  informed  him 
that  he  had  all  the  necessary  ordinations  to  lead  the  Church  (in 
his  time),  then  leaped,  smote  his  feet  together,  and  observed 
that  it  was  done;  in  a  few  days  Brother  William  started  on  his 
mission  and  saw  his  brothers  no  more.  He  returned  to  Nauvoo 
In  about  a  year  after  they  were  murdered. 

A  comparison  of  the  above  with  the  quotation  made 
by  Mr.  Roberts  will  show  that  he  has  not  been  careful 
In  his  copying. 

I  can  not  see  that  there  is  anything  in  William 
Smith's  testimony  to  convey  the  idea  conveyed  in  the 
statements  of  Young,  Hyde,  and  Woodruff.  He 
simply  says  that  Joseph  Smith  ordained  him  indi- 
vidually, and  makes  no  reference  in  this  statement  to 
his  bestowing  authority  upon  the  Twelve  as  such. 
William  Smith,  as  we  have  already  shown,  claimed 
that  the  son  of  Joseph  Smith  was  his  legal  successor ; 
and  in  this  same  testimony  given  before  the  court, 
Jrom  which  Mr.  Roberts  quotes  a  part,  he  says:  "I 
held  the  view  that  in  case  the  legal  successor  who  I 


APPENDIX.  201 

seen  as  such,  never  came  forward  himself  to  occupy 
that  place  that  I  held  a  sufficient  claim  under  my 
apostleship  to  be  properly  the  legal  successor  to  my 
brother  Joseph,  in  case  that  position  was  never  held 
at  that  time, — by  persons  who  at  that  time  were 
legally  entitled  to  that  position."  (See  answer  to 
question  464,  page  192,  Original  Testimony.)  So  he 
only  claimed  the  right  to  preside  when  the  legally 
authorized  President  was  not  installed,  and  only  then 
by  virtue  of  his  apostleship. 

He  was  further  asked:  "Had  your  brother  ever 
undertaken  to  confer  upon  you  that  authority?"  To 
which  he  answered:  "Never  any  further  than  the 
ordination  conferring  upon  me  the  office  of  an  apos- 
tle." (See  question  467,  page  193,  ibid.)  The  ordi- 
nation referred  to  in  the  passage  quoted  by  Mr. 
Roberts  is  thus  explained  by  Elder  Smith  himself. 

Though  Elder  William  Smith  was  made  under 
cross-examination  to  acknowledge  the  authorship  of 
what  Mr.  Roberts  quotes,  the  language  clearly  indi- 
cates that  it  was  not  the  language  of  William  Smith, 
as  he  would  not  call  himself  "Brother  William."  He 
was  a  very  old  man,  hard  of  hearing  at  the  time  of 
giving  his  testimony  in  court,  and  in  all  probability 
was  made  to  say  what  he  did  not  intend  to  say,  but 
his  explanation  makes  it  plain. 

If  Mr.  Roberts  insists  upon  this  testimony  of  Wil- 
liam Smith  quoted  by  him  without  its  connection 
being  taken  in  evidence,  it  proves  that  William  Smith 
was  ordained  the  successor  of  Joseph  Smith,  not 
Brigham  Young,  nor  any  other  member  of  the  Quo- 
rum of  Twelve,  and  not  Hyrum  Smith;  and  Mr. 


202  APPENDIX. 

Roberts'  theory  that  Hyrum  Smith  was  ordained  the 
successor,  and  that  the  keys  were  all  bestowed  upon 
the  Twelve  as  a  quorum,  falls  to  the  ground  under 
the  testimony  of  William  Smith. 

On  the  point  of  succession  Mr.  Roberts  is  con- 
siderably confused.  At  one  time  he  says  Hyrum 
Smith  was  ordained  and  set  apart  as  the  successor;  at 
another  time  that  the  keys  and  authority  of  the 
priesthood  were  bestowed  upon  the  Twelve  as  a  quo- 
rum and  thus  they  were  authorized  to  preside.  And 
now  he  comes  forward  with  the  testimony  that  Wil- 
liam Smith  was  ordained  to  be  the  successor  of 
Joseph  Smith.  If  Mr.  Roberts  and  his  associates  will 
take  a  position  upon  this  point  so  that  we  will  know 
where  they  are  and  what  they  claim  really  was  done 
to  provide  for  succession,  we  will  be  pleased  to  con- 
sider their  position  more  fully.  Judging  from  Mr. 
Roberts'  treatise  it  would  be  impossible  to  tell  what 
their  position  is. 

On  page  109  Mr.  Roberts  again  refers  to  the  state- 
ment made  by  Brigham  Young  at  Council  Bluffs  in 
1847,  that  they  were  about  to  reorganize  the  Church 
with  the  First  Presidency  and  Patriarch,  and  declares 
that  the  language  can  not  be  construed  to  mean  to 
reorganize  the  Church.  In  his  first  edition  he  said 
it  only  referred  to  the  Presidency.  He  has  made  a 
little  improvement  in  his  reply  and  adds  the  Patri- 
arch. I  said  before  that  I  was  willing  to  let  the 
matter  stand  by  simply  quoting  the  words.  I  am  still 
content  to  do  so.  Here  they  are: 

Since  the  murder  of  President  Joseph  Smith,  many  false 
prophets  and  false  teachers  have  arisen,  and 'tried  to  deceive 


APPENDIX.  205 

many,  during  which  time  we  have  mostly  tarried  with  the  body  of 
the  Church, or  been  seeking  a  new  location,  leaving  those  prophets 
and  teachers  to  run  their  race  undisturbed,  who  have  died  natural 
deaths,  or  committed  suicides;  and  we  now,  having  in  contem- 
plation soon  to  reorganize  the  Church  according  to  the  original 
pattern,  with  a  First  Presidency  and  Patriarch,  etc. 

On  pages  110  and  111  Mr.  Roberts  enters  into  quite 
an  extended  argument  to  prove  that  the  approximates 
of  the  numerical  strength  of  the  Church  as  given  by 
Joseph  Smith  on  two  different  occasions,  and  by  Wil- 
ford  Woodruff,  were  wrong,  and  says,  "The  numbers 
they  referred  to  were  simply  not  in  the  Church."  He 
contends  that  Mr.  Franklin  D.  Richards'  estimates  of 
about  twenty -six  or  twenty -seven  thousand  are  much 
more  reliable.  To  confirm  Elder  Richards'  estimates 
he  quotes  a  letter  from  George  J.  Adams  to  the  Bos- 
ton, Massachusetts,  Bee,  copied  in  the  Times  and 
Seasons  of  March  15,  1843,  where  Mr.  George  J. 
Adams  places  the  membership  in  the  United  States 
at  fifty  thousand,  and  those  in  the  British  Isles  at 
twenty  thousand,  and  says  that  the  editor  of  the 
Times  and  Seasons  corrects  this  by  saying  about  ten 
thousand  in  the  British  Isles.  Then  Mr.  Roberts, 
upon  what  authority  I  do  not  know,  makes  the  state- 
ment that  if  Mr.  Adams'  estimate  in  the  United  States 
should  be  cut  down  one  half  it  would  be  nearer  the 
truth.  After  getting  these  reductions  made  it  would 
leave  thirty -five  thousand,  a  discrepancy  between 
Richards'  figures  and  Roberts'  lowest  estimate  of 
eight  or  nine  thousand. 

Nor  does  Mr.  Roberts  take  into  consideration  that 
the  communication  of  Elder  Adams  was  published  in 
Times  and  Seasons  more  than  a  year  before  the 


204  APPENDIX. 

death  of  Joseph  Smith,  and  hence  the  year  and  three 
months  increase  was  not  computed  by  him ;  nor  the 
further  fact  that  the  communication  bears  no  date, 
and  hence  we  can  not  determine  when  it  was  written 
nor  when  it  was  published  in  the  Bee.  Further,  he 
does  not  tell  us  that  Elder  Adams  in  his  communica- 
tion speaks  of  the  work  being  established  in  Upper 
Canada  in  1836,  "and  soon  spread  through  that 
Province."  "This  glorious  message  has  also  spread 
into  Germany,  a  part  of  France,  and  reached  even 
Constantinople,  Jerusalem,  the  East  Indies,  and  the 
islands  of  the  seas." 

These  statements  were  before  Mr.  Roberts  when  he 
quoted  Elder  Adams,  and  he  knew  that  Elder  Adams 
made  no  computation  of  the  numbers  in  these  coun- 
tries. Yet  he  quotes  Mr.  Adams'  figures  in  the 
United  States  and  Great  Britain  as  though  that  was 
all.  Reduces  these  figures  one  half— ten  thousand 
on  the  authority  of  the  editor  of  the  Times  and  /Sea- 
sons, and  the  other  twenty- five  thousand  on  his  own 
assertion,  all  to  prove  that  Joseph  Smith  and  Wilford 
Woodruff  did  not  know  I 

Further  comment  is  needless. 

Mr.  Roberts  quotes  quite  an  array  of  testimony  to 
prove  that  an  exploring  expedition  was  authorized  by 
Joseph  Smith  to  explore  the  western  country.  Some 
of  this  testimony  is  of  a  very  questionable  character 
and  none  of  it  is  of  very  vital  importance.  Whether 
they  organized  to  explore  or  not  has  nothing  to  do 
with  the  issues  before  us.  I  think  it  quite  possible 
that  they  discussed  the  propriety  of  going  west, 
south,  and  elsewhere;  but  that  the  determination 


APPENDIX.  205 

was  finally  made  to  settle  in  Utah,  does  not  appear 
clear.  And  even  if  it  did,  it  does  not  justify  the 
Church  policy  adopted  in  Utah,  which  is  the  real 
issue  between  us.  Nor  would  a  determination  in 
council  to  make  a  location  in  Salt  Lake  Valley,  or 
anywhere  else,  change  the  decree  of  God  as  set  forth 
in  the  revelation  locating  Zion,  and  declaring  that  it 
should  not  be  removed  out  of  its  place. 

In  this  connection  Mr.  Roberts  introduces  the  tes- 
timony of  two  men  who  claim  to  have  volunteered  to 
go  with  the  company  to  explore  the  West.  The  first 
is  Mr.  S.  W.  Richards.  He  simply  states  that  he  was 
one  of  a  company  of  twenty-five  young  men  to  be  sent 
"westward  to  find  a  suitable  place  for  the  Saints  to 
move  to,  where  they  could  rest  for  a  time  from  tho 
constant  harassings  and  persecutions  to  which  they 
were  then  being  subjected,  and  which  was  likely  to 
increase  if  the  mob  did  not  have  the  life  of  the  Prophet 
placed  at  their  disposal.'*  He  does  not  say  that  they 
were  asked  to  go  to  the  Rocky  Mountains,  only  the 
direction  is  indicated,  westward  from  Nauvoo,  and 
that  the  place  to  be  selected  was  to  be  a  temporary 
abiding  place  where  the  Saints  could  "rest  for  a 
time."  In  closing  his  statement  he  remarks  that 
"California  and  Oregon  if  deemed  necessary,  were  to 
be  the  fields  of  our  exploration ;  while  it  was  thought 
Lower  California  would  offer  the  greatest  induce- 
ments for  locating  a  city  for  the  Saints."  This  latter 
statement  seems  to  be  thrown  in  incidentally.  He 
does  not  say  that  the  Church  authorities  when  asking 
him  to  go  westward  indicated  these  places,  nor  where 
the  suggestion  came  from  to  explore  California  and 


206  APPENDIX. 

Oregon.  Taking  this  last  statement,  it  is  very  indefi- 
nite, showing  that  they  had  no  settled  decision  as  to 
where  they  would  go. 

Mr.  Joseph  A.  Kelting,  the  other  witness,  is  as 
indefinite  upon  this  point  as  Mr.  Richards,  or  even 
more  so.  He  says :  "I  also  know  that  previous  to  the 
death  of  the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith,  there  was  a 
movement  on  foot,  looking  to  the  removal  of  the 
Church  from  Illinois  to  the  West.  Joseph  Smith  was 
the  one  who  took  lead  in  that  matter,  and  called  upon 
certain  brethren  to  go  on  an  exploring  expedition  to 
seek  a  suitable  location  for  the  Church;  and  I  was 
among  the  number  selected  to  go." 

There  is  no  mention  in  this  statement  of  the  Rocky 
Mountains  or  the  Great  Salt  Lake;  but  simply  west 
from  Illinois.  After  all  their  efforts  to  prove  that 
Joseph  Smith  originated  the  exodus  to  the  Rocky 
Mountains,  they  fail  to  prove  that  any  place  was 
selected  or  that  it  was  finally  determined  to  go  west 
at  all.  The  most  that  they  can  prove  is  that  it  was 
under  consideration  and  its  feasibility  discussed. 
But  as  we  have  before  said,  that  is  not  the  issue  at 
all.  The  issue  is  upon  the  policies  adopted  by  that 
people.  We  have  no  objection  to  their  temporary 
residence  in  the  Salt  Lake  Valley,  or  anywhere  else. 
Our  objection  is  to  making  it  the  Zion  of  the  Lord, 
and  to  the  doctrines  taught  and  the  policies  inaugu- 
rated. 

Another  subject,  however,  is  introduced  in  this 
statement  of  Mr.  Kelting,  and  it  is  sought  to  prove 
by  him  that  Joseph  Smith  the  Seer  was  implicated  in 
polygamy.  In  this  as  on  other  points  Mr.  Roberts  is 


APPENDIX.  207 

not  treating  upon  the  questions  involved.  The  issue 
between  us  is  not  whether  Joseph  Smith  taught  and 
practiced  polygamy  or  not;  the  question  is,  Is 
polygamy  right,  or  is  it  wrong?  However,  it  is  proper 
to  state  that  the  evidence  connecting  Joseph  Smith 
with  polygamy  is  very  unsatisfactory  so  far  as  we 
have  been  able  to  examine  it;  and  this  statement  of 
Mr.  Kelting  is  no  exception  to  the  rule.  He  repre- 
sents the  Prophet  as  being  too  cowardly  to  openly 
avow  his  convictions,  which  is  exactly  contrary  to  the 
record  of  the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith.  He  is  repre- 
sented as  taking  Kelting  into  a  private  room,  locking 
the  door,  and  then  making  inquiry  if  he  had  heard 
certain  things.  Then  pledging  him  not  to  tell  if  he 
revealed  to  him  the  facts  in  the  case;  getting  his 
promise  not  to  betray  him,  and  then  confidentially 
telling  him  about  this  plurality  of  wives  doctrine;  a 
doctrine,  according  to  the  purported  revelation  on  the 
subject,  that  was  of  such  importance  as  to  affect  the 
salvation  of  men's  souls  in  eternity.  Notwithstand- 
ing all  this,  the  Prophet  of  the  Lord  in  the  secrecies 
of  his  own  chamber  pledges  a  man  not  to  tell  this  im- 
portant thing,  and  puts  him  under  obligations  by  get- 
ting him  to  be  a  party  to  the  practice.  There  is  no  one 
present  but  Joseph  Smith  and  Joseph  A.  Kelting;  no 
possibility  of  proving  or  disproving  his  statement  by 
other  witnesses,  so  far  as  the  original  conversation  is 
concerned.  The  only  intimation  of  any  one  knowing 
anything  about  it  is  that  he  told  it  sometime  a  few 
years  ago  to  Alexander  H.  Smith,  son  of  the  Prophet. 
Elder  Alexander  H.  Smith  being  the  only  other  wit- 
ness in  the  case,  we  wrote  him,  sending  him  a  copy  of 


208  APPENDIX, 

Mr.  Joseph  A.  Kelting's  statement  and  asking  him  to 
answer  for  publication  as  to  his  remembrance  of  such 
a  conversation.  In  answer  to  our  inquiry  we  received 
the  following : 

DETROIT,  Minnesota,  July  11,  1903. 
BRO.  HEMAN  SMITH:  • 

Yours  of  July  2,  containing  affidavit  of  one  Joseph  A.  Kelt- 
ing,  of  Colton,  California,  reached  me  this  forenoon  on  my 
return  from  Bottineau,  North  Dakota. 

I  remember  the  man's  name,  but  have  no  remembrance  of 
having  called  upon  him  while  in  California.  If  I  did  it  was  not 
at  Colton,  but  San  Bernardino. 

The  man  has  simply  drawn  upon  his  imagination,  for  no  such 
conversation  ever  passed  between  us.  It  is  of  such  a  nature  that 
I  should  have  remembered  it.  I  could  not  well  forget  it.  You  . 
will  note  he  affirms  his  statement  relative  to  the  body  of  his 
article,  and  incidentally  says  he  told  me  of  it.  You  may  publish 
my  answer  if  you  wish. 

It  is  fabrication  from  beginning  to  end.  The  man  evidently  is 
taking  refuge  under  that  infamous  clause  in  that  supposed  reve- 
lation on  celestial  marriage,  which  says,  under  certain  condi- 
tions a  man  may  commit  all  manner  of  sins  save  the  shedding  of 
innocent  blood,  etc.  If  that  people  are  not  taking  refuge  under 
a  covering  of  lies,  this  world  never  saw  a  people  who  did. 

Mr.  Anson's  statement  is  again  published;  but  we 
quoted  that  in  our  reply  to  Mr.  Roberts  and  made  all 
the  comments  necessary.  Then  comes  the  purported 
statement  of  Gideon  Carter  without  the  signature  of 
Mr.  Carter,  but  stating  that  it  was  subscribed  and 
sworn  to  the  twenty -seventh  day  of  February,  1874, 
before  J.  C.  Christy,  a  notary  public  in  and  for  San 
Bernardino  County,  state  of  California.  Why  Mr, 
Carter's  signature  is  not  secured  seems  strange.  I 
was  personally  acquainted  with  Mr.  Gideon  Carter, 
and  believed  him  to  be  an  honest  and  truthful  man. 


APPENDIX.  209 

can  hardly  credit  the  report  that  he  ever  said  what 
he  is  reported  to  have  said  in  this  statement;  for  he 
represents  that  at  the  time  of  the  death  of  Joseph 
Smith  the  Prophet  he  was  living  in  the  family  of 
Orange  Lysander  Wight,  the  son  of  Lyman  Wight. 
Though  he  does  not  say  that  they  resided  in  Nauvoo, 
that  inference  is  to  be  drawn,  for  he  is  relating 
events  that  transpired  in  Nauvoo,  and  he  says  that 
the  killing  of  the  Prophet  is  an  event  that  he  dis- 
tinctly remembers. 

Now,  if  Mr.  Gideon  Carter  lived  in  the  family  of 
Orange  Lysander  Wight,  in  the  spring  and  summer 
of  1844,  he  was  not  at  Nauvoo  but  at  Black  River 
Falls,  Wisconsin.  A  boy  thirteen  years  of  age,  liv- 
ing in  Wisconsin,  with  means  of  communication  so 
limited  as  they  then  were,  could  have  known  but  very 
little  of  events  transpiring  at  Nauvoo  at  that  period  of 
time. 

Lyman  Wight  in  his  journal  states : 

I  started  about  the  middle  of  April,  1844,  to  Nauvoo  witL  my 
wife  and  my  three  youngest  children.  My  three  oldest  children 
having  married  on  the  sixth  day  of  February  last,  I  left  them  to 
tarry  with  the  remainder  of  the  company  until  the  first  of  July 
next,  having  already  sold  the  mills,  but  reserved  them  until  that 
time. 

Orange  Wight  was  the  oldest  son  of  Lyman  Wight, 
and  is  one  of  the  three  spoken  of.  The  mills  spoken 
of  were  at  Black  River  Falls,  Wisconsin,  which  place 
Lyman  Wight  was  leaving  in  the  middle  of  April  to 
go  to  Nauvoo.  According  to  this  statement  Mr. 
Gideon  Carter  is  wrong;  also  when  he  says  that 
Orange  Wight  married  his  sister  Matilda  Carter  about 


210  APPENDIX. 

a  year  before  the  killing  of  Joseph  Smith,  for  that 
event  occurred  on  February  6,  1844,  not  quite  five 
months  before  the  death  of  Joseph  Smith.  He  had 
been  living  in  Wisconsin  from  sometime  in  1843  until 
the  middle  of  April,  and  was  living  there  in  April, 
1844,  to  continue  in  possession  of  the  mills  until  the 
first  of  the  following  July.  His  oldest  sister,  Mrs. 
Anna  C.  Smith,  one  of  the  three  spoken  of,  who  was 
married  at  the  same  time  he  was,  now  residing  at 
Lamoni,  Iowa,  says  she  does  not  remember  distinctly 
the  date  of  their  arrival  in  Nauvoo;  but  does  remem- 
ber distinctly  that  it  was  after  the  death  of  the 
Prophet,  and  that  she  came  down  the  river  on  a  raft 
in  company  with  her  brother  Orange. 

So  Mr.  Carter,  if  he  ever  made  the  statement,  may 
be  right  in  saying  that  he  lived  with  Orange  Lysander 
Wight;  but  if  so,  he  is  a  very  poor  witness  of  what 
transpired  at  Nauvoo,  being  but  a  boy  of  thirteen 
years  and  not  present.  The  rest  of  his  testimony  is 
very  unimportant.  He  relates  that  Lyman  Wight 
made  certain  claims  in  Texas  in  regard  to  the  doc- 
trine of  polygamy.  This  is  but  second-hand  testi- 
mony. Mr.  Carter  knows  nothing  about  it.  I  have 
talked  with  Carter  in  regard  to  it;  and  while  I  found 
him  quite  willing  to  throw  the  responsibility  of  the 
conduct  of  those  with  whom  he  was  nearly  related 
upon  Joseph  Smith,  he  personally  knew  nothing  in 
regard  to  Joseph  Smith's  connection  with  the  practice 
of  polygamy. 

I  presume  that  the  date  of  this  statement  of  Mr. 
Carter  is  a  typographical  error,  and  that  it  should  be 
1894  instead  of  1874,  as  Mr.  Roberts  was  in  that 


APPENDIX.  211 

country  in  1894,  and  the  date  of  the  statement  of 
Joseph  A.  Kelting  is  March  1,  1894.  The  date  of 
Carter's  probably  should  be  February  27,  1894.  At 
that  time  Mr.  Roberts  was  contemplating  a  discussion 
with  some  elders  of  the  Reorganization  in  San  Ber- 
nardino, and  was  doubtless  collecting  these  state- 
ments for  that  purpose.  But  if  so,  why  did  he  not 
give  his  opponents  an  opportunity  to  be  present  when 
these  examinations  were  made  and  to  cross-examine 
the  witnesses.  Right  in  the  neighborhood  where  his 
opponents  were  living,  and  where  it  was  supposed 
the  discussion  would  take  place,  he  privately  inter- 
viewed parties,  procured  a  signed  statement  from 
one,  and  now  publishes  another  unsigned  and  gives 
no  opportunity  for  the  other  side  to  be  represented. 
Such  testimony  as  this  is  of  but  very  little  value; 
and  we  have  already  given  it  all  the  consideration 
that  it  merits,  if  not  more. 

Mr.  Roberts  publishes  a  statement  purporting  to  be 
a  statement  of  John  Taylor  and  Orson  Hyde,  in  a 
communication  to  the  Saints  in  Great  Britain,  in 
which  they  give  notice  of  the  removal  of  the.  Church 
from  Nauvoo,  and  further  say  "years  before  the 
temple  was  completed,  and  long  before  the  martyr- 
dom of  our  Prophet  and  Patriarch.  Many  living 
witnesses  can  testify  that  we  proposed  moving  to 
California,  leaving  the  land  of  our  oppression, 
preaching  the  gospel  to  the  Lamanites,  building  up 
other  temples  to  the  living  God,  and  establishing 
ourselves  in  the  far  distant  West." 

This  is  immaterial.     Suppose  there  was  a  proposi- 


212  APPENDIX. 

tion  of  that  kind ;  it  does  not  affect  the  main  question 
at  issue,  as  we  have  before  shown. 

On  page  127  Mr.  Roberts  makes  another  of  his 
historical  mistakes.  He  says  that  "the  Church  while 
in  the  Eastern  States  never  numbered  more  than 
three  or  at  the  most  four  stakes  of  Zion." 

Mr.  Roberts  will  hardly  dispute  that  there  was  a 
stake  at  Kirtland,  Ohio;  one  at  Adam-ondi-Ahman, 
in  Missouri;  one  at  Commerce,  or  Nauvoo;  one 
called  the  Zarahemla  Stake,  across  the  river  from 
Nauvoo.  Millennial  /Star,  volume  18,  page  55,  con- 
tains a  notice  of  the  First  Presidency  deciding  to 
organize  a  stake  at  Crooked  Creek,  Illinois.  On 
December  4  and  5,  1841 ,  a  conference  was  held  at 
Ramus,  Illinois,  at  which  time  it  was  decided  that 
the  organization  of  Ramus  Stake  should  be  discon- 
tinued. At  the  October  conference  of  1840  a  "com- 
mittee was  appointed  to  organize  stakes,  consisting 
of  Hyrum  Smith,  Lyman  Wight,  and  Almon  Babbitt; 
and  during  the  same  month  they  organized  stakes  at 
Lima,  Quincy,  Mount  Hope,  and  Freedom,  and  on 
the  first  of  November  they  organized  a  stake  called 
Geneva  Stake,  in  Morgan  County,  Illinois. 

Here  are  at  least  eleven  stakes  organized  in  the 
East.  Mr.  Roberts  may  mean,  however,  that  there 
were  never  more  than  three  or  four  at  the  same  time. 
But  this  is  not  true,  for  here  is  an  account  of  at  least 
five  organized  within  one  month  after  the  October 
conference  of  1840. 

In  my  reply  to  Mr.  Roberts  I  refused  to  take  the 
statement  in  that  "carefully  revised"  history  of 
Joseph  Smith  as  evidence  that  there  could  be  more 


APPENDIX.  213 

than  seven  quorums  of  seventy  legally  in  existence 
at  the  same  time.  Mr.  Roberts,  on  page  129  of  his 
revised  edition,  cites  as  confirmation  of  his  former 
statement  the  following  from  a  copy  of  the  manu- 
script of  Church  History  written  by  John  Whitmer : 

About  the  same  time  .  .  .  there  were  seventy  high  priests 
chosen,  who  were  called  elders,  to  be  under  the  direction  of  the 
Twelve  and  assist  them  according  to  their  needs,  and  if  the 
seventy  were  not  enough,  call  seventy  more  until  seventy  times 
seventy. 

This  history,  written  by  John  Whitmer,  of  which 
Mr.  Roberts  says  the  Church  in  Utah  has  a  copy,  is 
now  in  our  hands.  The  quotation  by  Mr.  Roberts  is 
nearly  correct;  but  Mr.  Roberts  would  hardly  be 
willing  to  take  the  statement  of  John  Whitmer  as 
being  correct  in  every  particular,  for  he  will  not 
admit,  I  believe,  that  these  seventy  were  high  priests. 
There  are  many  things  in  this  history  of  John  Whit- 
mer which  Mr.  Roberts  would  not  admit  as  authori- 
tative. If  Mr.  Roberts  has  had  an  opportunity  of 
perusing  the  copy  of  this  history,  he  certainly  knows 
that  Mr.  Whitmer  was  not  an  accurate  historian.  Nor 
has  the  Church  in  Utah  confined  itself  to  the  limit  set 
forth  in  this  quotation  from  John  Whitmer.  They 
have  more  than  doubled  the  number  of  "seventy 
times  seventy." 

On  page  132  Mr.  Roberts  quotes  a  statement  made 
in  our  reply  to  the  effect  that  ordinations  to  the 
priesthood  for  the  dead,  endowments  for  the  dead, 
sealings  (husbands  and  wives)  for  the  dead,  sealings 
(children  to  parents)  for  the  dead,  were  not  contem- 
plated in  the  law  of  God ;  and  then  asks  the  author 


214  APPENDIX. 

of  the  "Reply"  if  he  will  "undertake  to  argue  that 
confirmation  is  not  as  necessary  to  salvation  of  the 
dead  as  baptism;  or  that  baptism  is  complete  with- 
out the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  well  as  the 
baptism  of  water." 

Certainly  not.  Why  does  Mr.  Roberts  lug  in  the 
ordinance  of  confirmation  and  the  receiving  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  here,  when  it  is  not  mentioned  by  us? 
We  mentioned  that  the  law  did  not  contemplate  ordi- 
nations for  the  dead,  endowments  for  the  dead, 
the  sealing  of  husbands  and  wives,  and  the  sealing 
of  children  to  parents.  We  do  not  deny  the  ordi- 
nance of  confirmation  in  its  proper  place  nor  the 
reception  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

But  he  again  quotes  (page  133)  that  revised  history 
of  Joseph  Smith,  volume  twelve  of  Millennial  /Star, 
page  664.  This  reference  is  probably  a  typograph- 
ical error,  as  we  have  not  been  able  to  find  the 
quotation  by  the  reference.  But  this  particular  quo- 
tation purports  to  be  a  sermon  delivered  by  Joseph 
Smith,  January  20,  1844,  reported  by  Elder  Wood- 
ruff. He  is  there  made  to  say  regarding  the  dead : 

But  how  are  we  to  become  saviors  on  Mount  Zion?  By  build- 
ing their  temples,  erecting  their  baptismal  fonts,  and  going 
forth  and  receiving  all  the  ordinances,  baptisms,  confirmations, 
washings,  anointings,  ordinations,  and  sealing  powers  upon 
their  heads,  in  behalf  of  all  their  progenitors  who  are  dead,  and 
redeem  them  that  they  may  come  forth  in  the  first  resurrection 
and  be  exalted  to  thrones  of  glory  with  them;  and  herein  is  the 
chain  that  binds  the  hearts  of  the  fathers  to  the  children,  and 
the  hearts  of  the  children  to  the  fathers,  which  fulfills  the  mis- 
sion of  Elijah. 


APPENDIX.  215 

The  only  point  in  which  this  purported  sermon 
conflicts  with  our  statement  is  on  the  ordinations. 
Nothing  even  in  that  about  sealing  husbands  and 
wives,  parents  and  children!  We  are  still  of  the 
opinion  that  the  people  in  Utah  are  doing  work  in 
their  temples  not  authorized  by  the  law  of  God,  at 
least  they  have  not  been  able  to  produce  any  law 
covering  their  practices. 

Mr.  Roberts  in  his  first  edition  stated  that  "some 
of  our  'friends'  of  high  standing  in  the  'Reorganiza- 
tion* joining  in  the  hue  and  cry  against  the  Saints  of 
God,  and  aiding  in  the  work  of  misrepresentation." 

In  replying  to  this  I  challenged  the  proof  that 
the  Reorganization  had  aided  in  the  work  of  mis- 
representation. Replying  to  this  challenge  Mr.  Rob- 
erts says : 

Well,  here  is  the  proof:  On  February  22, 1882,  in  the  course 
of  a  speech  against  the  Church  in  Utah,  Joseph  Smith,  the 
President  of  the  Reorganized  Church  said: 

"There  were  many  men  in  Utah  who  were  single  because  they 
said  they  had  no  assurance  they  could  find  for  wives  women  who 
were  not  contaminated.  They  might  go  to  the  farm  houses  to 
choose  wives,  but  could  not  feel  certain  that  some  of  the  bishops 
had  not  been  there  and  robbed  the  daughters  of  their  virtue. " — 
The  Chicago  Daily  Inter- Ocean,  February  23,  1882. 

The  Chicago  Times'  version  of  this  part  of  the  same  speech, 
under  the  caption  "A  Lusty  War  Cry"  (issue  of  February  23, 
1882),  is  as  follows: 

"There  are  hundreds  and  thousands  of  Mormons  in  Utah  who 
will  not  marry  wives  because  they  do  not  know  where  to  get 
wives  that  have  not  been  contaminated.  They  do  not  know  what 
houses  have  escaped  the  invasion  of  lecherous  bishops  who  have 
robbed  hundreds  of  women  of  their  purity.  The  men  can  not 
afford  to  take  the  risks  that  marriage  means." 

Many  vile  and  vicious  things  have  been  said  of  the  Saints  in 


216  APPENDIX. 

Utah,  but  it  was  reserved  for  Joseph  Smith,  the  President  of  the 
Reorganized  Church,  to  say  at  once  the  most  untruthful,  the 
lowest,  the  most  contemptible,  cowardly,  and  vicious  thing  that 
ever  was  said  of  a  much-maligned  and  misrepresented  people. 
And  what  makes  it  so  utterly  inexcusable  is  the  fact  that  the 
speaker  knew  better;  for  he  had  been  in  Utah,  and  had  been 
among  the  people  sufficiently  to  know  that  no  such  conditions  as 
he  describes  in  that  speech  existed.  It  was  malicious,  willful 
misrepresentation.  He  bore  false  witness  against  his  neighbors. 
At  the  time  of  the  speech  I  noted  down  the  misrepresantations, 
not  from  the  Chicago  papers,  but  from  other  papers,  for  the 
false  statement  was  widely  copied,  and  I  think  made  a  dispatch 
to  the  press  of  the  country.  Recently  I  sent  to  the  Chicago 
papers  and  had  the  above  quotations  verified. 

It  is  only  necessary  to  say  in  this  connection  that 
President  Joseph  Smith  denied  these  statements,  and 
published  his  denial  immediately  after.  In  the 
/Saints9  Herald  for  June  1,  1882,  there  is  not  only  a 
denial  but  a  statement  of  what  he  did  say  as  follows  : 

Some  of  the  statements  made  by  the  Editor  in  the  speech, 
complained  of  by  the  News,  are  not  given  in  the  Tribune's  report 
as  they  were  uttered.  This  is  the  case  with  the  one  referring  to 
the  "contamination  of  women  by  Mormon  bishops."  The  state- 
ment as  made  by  the  Editor  was  this;  that  whi  e  in  Salt  Lake 
City,  in  1876,  he  became  acquainted  with  an  unmarried  man, 
then  thirty-nine  years  old,  whose  youth  and  early  manhood  had 
been  spent  in  Utah.  The  Editor  asked  him  the  question  why 
he  had  not  married,  and  he  gave  in  reply  substantially,  that 
he  did  not  know  where  to  go  in  the  Territory,  to  get  a  wife;  that 
it  was  not  easy  to  find  young  marriageable  women  who  were  not 
already  married  into  polygamous  families,  or  were  bespoken  for 
some  bishop.  This  man  further  stated  that  he  was  not  alone  in 
being  unmarried  for  the  same  cause,  the  contamination  of 
polygamy.  We  believe  the  statement  made  by  him  was  true; 
but  the  Tribune's  report  gives  the  Editor  as  the  author  of  the 
saying. 


APPENDIX.  217 

Notwithstanding  this  denial  the  people  of  Utah 
continued  to  reiterate  the  charge ;  and  July  2,  1885, 
President  Smith  while  in  Salt  Lake  City  wrote  a 
communication  on  the  subject  to  the  Deseret  News 
and  handed  it  to  the  editor  in  person.  I  am  informed 
that  it  did  not  appear.  It  was,  however,  published  in 
the  Saints'  Advocate  for  July,  1885.  -  The  letter  is  as 
follows : 

SALT  LAKE  CITY,  July  2, 1885. 

Editor  Deseret  News:  Please  do  me  the  justice  of  the  follow- 
ing correction:  . 

The  statement  complained  of  by  you  in  your  to-day's  issue,  as 
given  in  the  Chicago  Tribune's  report  of  my  Chicago  speech, 
February  22,  1882,  was  not  made  by  me  in  the  form  stated.  The 
statement  made  by  me  was,  'That  while  in  Salt  Lake  City,  in 
1876, 1  became  acquainted  with  an  unmarried  man,  then  thirty- 
nine  years  old,  whose  youth  and  early  manhood  had  been  spent 
in  Utah.  I  asked  him  the  question  why  he  had  not  married,  and 
he  gave  in  reply,  substantially,  that  he  did  not  know  where  to 
go  in  the  Territory  to  get  a  wife ;  that  it  was  not  easy  to  find 
young  marriageable  women,  who  were  not  already  married  into 
polygamous  families,  or  were  bespoken  for  some  bishop.  This 
man  further  stated  that  he  was  not  alone  in  being  unmarried  for 
the  same  cause,  the  contamination  of  polygamy  " 

Neither  the  Times  nor  Herald  gave  the  sentence  in  the 
obnoxious  form  used  by  the  Tribune.  I  had  twice  before  been 
misrepresented  by  the  same  paper,  and  tried  to  have  them  set 
me  right,  and  failed ;  and  so  did  not  try  in  this  instance ;  but  in 
the  issue  of  our  own  paper,  the  Saints'  Herald  for  June  1, 
1882,  as  soon  after  the  presentation  of  the  matter  in  your  issue 
for  May  13,  1882,  as  it  was  possible,  1.  published  this  correction, 
of  which  a  copy  of  the  paper  containing  it  was  sent  you,  with 
the  denial  of  having  made  the  statement;  using  the  following 
language  concerning  it:  ''The  statement  as  given  iii  the  Tribune 
report,  and  which  the  News  denounces  as  an  'atrocious  lie,'  was 
not  made  as  stated.  The  Times  and  Herald  each  published  a 


218  APPENDIX. 

report,  and  neither  of  them  got  the  remark  in  the  form  given  by 
the  Tribune.  As  given  it  is  a  harsh  remark,  of  which  we  do  not 
object  to  the  News  finding  fault." 

The  virtue  and  purity  of  the  women  of  Utah,  aside  from 
plural  marriage,  were  not  questioned  by  me  and  never  have 
been. 

I  hand  you  herewith  a  copy  of  the  Saints1  Herald  for  June  1, 
1882,  that  you  may  see  that  I  made  the  correction  of  the 
improper  statement  as  soon  as  I  could  after  my  attention  was 
called  to  it.  Had  I  made  the  remark  I  should  justly  deserve 
censure;  but  not  having  made  it,  you  should  in  honor  to  your- 
self and  justice  to  me  permit  this  to  go  before  your  readers. 

Yours  respectfully, 

JOSEPH  SMITH. 

Mr.  Roberts  may  claim  that  the  denial  of  President 
Smith  was  only  on  the  Tribune  report,  whereas  he  is 
quoted  from  the  Daily  Inter-  Ocean  and  the  Chicago 
Times.  But  though  the  reports  in  these  papers  may 
differ,  Mr.  Roberts  certainly  is  not  justified,  in  the 
light  of  these  explanations,  in  quoting  the  language 
as  President  Smith's  when  he  clearly  states  that  it 
was  the  language  of  another,  and  also  gives  the  lan- 
guage which  he  did  use,  which  differs  materially  from 
that  published  in  the  Times,  Inter-  Ocean,  Herald,  and 
Tribune. 

In  Mr.  Roberts'  late  edition  of  his  book  he  adds  an 
article  entitled,  "A  Sufficient  Answer  to  Josephites," 
which  purports  to  have  been  published  in  the  Improve- 
ment Era  for  February,  1898,  and  is  now  copied  into 
this  treatise. 

In  the  first  place  he  essays  to  state  the  position  of 
the  Reorganized  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day 
Saints,  and  states  for  them  that  they  hold  that  Joseph 
Smith,  the  President  of  their  organization,  of  right 


APPENDIX.  219 

should  have  succeeded  to  the  Presidency  for  two  rea- 
sons: "First,  because,  as  they  allege,  it  is  his  birth- 
right; and  second,  by  virtue  of  an  ordination  to  that 
position  which  they  affirm  he  received  from  his  father 
before  the  latter 's  martyrdom." 

This  is  not  only  a  misstatement  of  the  case  but  a 
partial  statement  also.  The  "Josephites"  do  claim  that 
all  other  things  being  equal  he  had  prior  right  by 
birthright;  but  they  do  not  claim  that  he  was  ordained 
to  that  position  by  his  father  (only  in  the  sense  that 
an  appointment  can  be  called  an  ordination),  but 
simply  that  he  was  blessed  and  designated  as  the 
successor.  It  was  an  appointment,  not  an  ordination 
to  the  priesthood. 

He  should  have  said  that  the  claim  is  made  not  only 
upon  these  two  reasons,  but,  third,  that  he  was  called 
of  God  to  that  position ;  fourth,  that  he  was  accepted 
by  the  Church  to  serve  in  that  capacity,  and,  fifth, 
that  he  was  properly  ordained  by  those  authorized. 

He  again  misstates  our  position  when  he  says  that 
the  Reorganization  claims  "that  in  leading  the  people 
to  Utah,  the  Twelve  led  them  astray."  It  is  not  our 
claim,  and  Mr.  Roberts  ought  to  know  it,  that  they  led 
the  people  astray  in  leading  them  to  Utah,  but  that 
they  led  them  astray  in  many  things  besides  leading 
bhem  to  Utah. 

The  "Sufficient  Answer  to  Josephites,"  as  Mr. 
Roberts  terms  it,  consists  in  this :  That  in  May,  1843, 
Joseph  Smith  had  an  interview  with  Stephen  A. 
Douglas,  and  during  that  interview  he  said : 

Judge,  you  will  aspire  to  the  presidency  of  the  United  States ; 
and  if  you  ever  turn  your  hand  against  me  or  the  Latter  Day 


220  APPENDIX. 

Saints,  you  will  feel  the  weight  of  the  hand  of  the  Almighty 
upon  you;  and  you  will  live  to  see  and  know  that  I  have  testified 
the  truth  to  you;  for  the  conversation  of  this  day  will  stick  to 
you  through  life. 

He  claims  that  this  prophecy  was  fulfilled,  and  that 
the  hand  of  the  Almighty  rested  upon  Stephen  A. 
Douglas  because  Mr.  Douglas  made  a  speech  on  the 
twelfth  day  of  June,  1857,  in  Springfield,  Illinois,  in 
the  course  of  which  he  said,  referring  to  the  Mor- 
mons: 

Should  such  a  state  of  things  actually  exist  as  we  are  led  to 
infer  from  the  reports — and  such  information  comes  in  an  official 
shape— the  knife  must  be  applied  to  this  pestiferous,  disgusting 
cancer  which  is  gnawing  into  the  very  vitals  of  the  body  politic. 
It  must  be  cut  out  by  the  roots,  and  seared  over  by  the  red-hot 
iron  of  stern  and  unflinching  law.  .  .  .  Should  all  efforts  fail 
to  bring  them  to  a  sense  of  their  duty,  there  is  but  one  remedy 
left.  Repeal  the  organic  law  of  the  Territory,  on  the  ground 
that  they  are  alien  enemies  and  outlaws,  unfit  to  be  citizens  of  a 
territory,  much  less  ever  to  become  citizens  of  one  of  the  free 
and  independent  States  of  this  confederacy. 

This  was  said  regarding  the  people  in  Utah ;  but  it 
will  be  noticed  that  Mr.  Douglas  based  this  strong 
statement  on  the  contingency  that  "such  a  state  of 
things  actually  exists  as  we  are  led  to  infer  from  the 
reports."  Perhaps  Mr.  Douglas  was  right;  and  if  a 
state  of  things  such  as  was  reported  existed  there, 
the  measures  advocated  by  Mr.  Douglas  would  have 
been  proper.  We  have  not  the  reports  and  can  not 
judge.  But  why  hold,  as  Mr.  Roberts  concludes, 
that  the  judgments  of  God  followed  Stephen  A. 
Douglas  any  more  than  any  other  defeated  candidate 
for  the  presidency?  Other  men  have  been  defeated. 
Other  men  died  after*  their  defeat;  and  but  few  if 


APPENDIX.  221 

any  died  more  honored  than  Stephen  A.  Douglas  by 
that  portion  of  the  citizenship  which  supported  him. 

But  to  show  Mr.  Roberts'  ignorance  of  the  facts  ot 
history  we  have  but  to  quote  one  paragraph  of  his 
comments  found  on  page  146  of  his  revised  work : 

Stephen  A.  Douglas  did  aspire  to  the  presidency  of  the 
United  States,  and  was  nominated  for  that  office  by  the  Demo- 
cratic Convention,  held  in  Charleston,  on  the  23d  of  June,  1860 
When  in  the  convention  he  was  declared  the  regular  nominee  oJ 
the  Democratic  party,  "The  whole  body  rose  to  its  feet,  hata 
were  waved  in  the  air  and  many  tossed  aloft;  shouts,  screams, 
and  yells,  and  every  boisterous  mode  of  expressing  approbatior 
and  unanimity,  were  resorted  to." 

When  Mr.  Douglas  aspired  to  the  presidency,  no  man  in  th« 
history  of  American  politics  had  more  reason  to  hope  for  suc- 
cess. The  political  party  of  which  he  was  the  recognized  leader, 
in  the  preceding  presidential  election  had  polled  174  electoral 
votes,  as  against  122  cast  by  the  other  two  parties  which  opposed 
it;  and  a  popular  vote  of  1,838,169,  as  against  1,215,798  votes 
for  the  two  parties  opposing. 

It  would  be  hard  to  form  a  passage  as  short  as  this 
with  more  mistakes  in  it.  Stephen  A.  Douglas  was 
not  nominated  at  Charleston.  The  Charleston  con- 
vention was  not  held  in  June  but  in  April,  at  which 
time  there  was  a  division  in  the  convention ;  and  the 
part  of  the  convention  that  favored  Douglas  met  at 
Baltimore,  Maryland,  June  18,  and  there  Douglas 
was  nominated.  He  was  not  declared  the  regular 
nominee  of  the  Democratic  party  in  the  convention 
that  met  at  Charleston ;  simply  the  nominee  of  that 
convention  that  met  at  Baltimore.  The  Democratic 
party  did  not  poll  a  majority  of  the  popular  vote  in 
1856  as  asserted  by  Mr.  Roberts.  Mr.  Buchanan 
polled  1,838,169  just  as  Mr.  Roberts  gives  it,  but  his 


222  APPENDIX. 

two  opponents'  combined  vote  was  greater  than  his. 
Fremont  received  1,341,264,  and  Fillmore  874,534; 
making  their  combined  vote  2,215,798.  A  mistake  of 
just  one  million,  a  characteristic  mistake  for  Roberts 
after  all!  (See  History  of  Ready  Reference  by 
Larned,  vol.  5;  also  Greeley's  American  Conflict, 
vol.  1.)  It  is  not  true  that  no  man  in  politics  had 
more  reason  than  Douglas  to  hope  for  success.  Had 
he  represented  the  Democratic  party  as  a  whole,  he 
might  have  had  great  reasons  to  hope  for  success; 
but  he  represented  but  a  faction,  and  was  nominated 
by  a  faction. 

Mr.  Roberts  asserts  that  he  "died  at  his  home 
in  Chicago,  a  disappointed,  not  to  say  heart-broken 
man." 

There  is  no  reason  to  say  that  he  was  a  heart- 
broken man.  Disappointed,  of  course,  as  many  other 
men  have  been,  but  Stephen  A.  Douglas  had  the 
manly  courage  after  his  defeat,  when  the  Union 
was  about  to  be  rent  asunder,  to  rally  to  the  sup- 
port of  Mr.  Lincoln,  his  successful  competitor. 
He  advocated  that  it  was  the  duty  of  the  defeated 
party  to  sustain  Mr.  Lincoln's  administration  and  the 
Union. 

Mr.  Roberts  concludes  after  making  these  misstate- 
ments  that  this  is  a  sufficient  answer  to  the  Joseph  - 
ites  because  it  was  not  the  Josephites  whom  Douglas 
spoke  against  but  the  people  in  Utah;  and  that 
he  died  under  the  judgment  of  God  because  he  did 
so  speak. 

In  the  first  place  he  did  not  speak  against  the  peo- 
ple in  Utah  only  on  the  supposition  that  reports  con- 


APPENDIX.  223 

cerning  them  were  tr.ue.  In  the  second  place  there  is 
no  evidence  that  the  judgment  of  God  specially  fol- 
lowed him.  I  presume  Mr.  Roberts  would  agree 
that  if  reports  concerning  the  people  in  Utah  were 
true  some  heroic  measures  would  be  necessary. 

In  Appendix  1,  page  153,  Mr.  Roberts  gives  some 
instances  of  history  which  he  claims  would  justify 
Joseph  Smith  in  receiving  a  revelation  on  polygamy 
and  keeping  it  secret,  and  that  the  charge  of  coward- 
ice if  he  did  so  would  not  obtain.  He  speaks  of  Jesus 
the  Christ  saying  unto  his  disciples  that  they  should 
tell  no  man  the  vision,  and  quotes  from  that  care- 
fully revised  history  of  Joseph  Smith  to  show  that  on 
different  occasions  he  counseled  the  elders  not  tc 
teach  certain  doctrines  until  the  work  was  more  fully 
established.  He  also  quotes  from  the  revelation  oi 
March  7,  1831,  as  follows: 

And  now  I  say  unto  you,  Keep  these  things  from  going  abroad 
unto  the  world,  until  it  is  expedient  in  me,  that  ye  may  accom- 
plish this  work  in  the  eyes  of  the  people  and  in  the  eyes  of  your 
enemies,  that  they  may  not  know  your  works  until  ye  have 
accomplished  the  thing  which  I  have  commanded  you. — Doctrine 
and  Covenants  45: 15.  (Utah  edition,  paragraph  72.) 

In  the  instruction  of  Christ  to  his  disciples  there 
was  no  principle  of  practice  involved  regarding  which 
they  were  to  keep  silent.  To  make  the  revelation  of 
1831  apply  Mr.  Roberts  would  have  to  maintain  that 
the  terms  these  things  and  this  work  mean  identically 
the  same  thing — a  construction  that  the  context  will 
not  justify. 

The  Lord  has  just  been  explaining  some  of  his 
teaching  to  the  early  disciples,  and  says : 


224  APPENDIX. 

It  shall  not  be  given  unto  you  to  know  any  further  concerning 
this  chapter,  until  the  New  Testament  be  translated,  and  in  it  all 
these  things  shall  be  made  known;  wherefore  I  give  unto  you 
that  you  may  now  translate  it,  that  ye  may  be  prepared  for  the 
things  to  come,"  etc. — Paragraph  11. 

A  very  good  reason  for  keeping  these  things  was 
that  they  were  not  fully  revealed.  This  was  given  in 
March,  1831,  and  was  of  course  to  be  understood  in 
the  light  of  what  was  given  on  the  same  point  the 
month  before  as  follows : 

Thou  shalt  ask,  and  my  scriptures  shall  be  given  as  I  have 
appointed,  and  they  shall  be  preserved  in  safety;  and  it  is 
expedient  that  thou  shouldst  hold  thy  peace  concerning  them, 
and  not  teach  them  until  ye  have  received  them  in  full.  And  I 
give  unto  you  a  commandment,  that  then  ye  shall  teach  them 
unto  all  men;  for  they  shall  be  taught  unto  all  nations,  kin- 
dreds, tongues,  and  people."— Doctrine  and  Covenants  42:  15. 
(Utah  edition,  paragraphs  56-58.) 

In  the  passage  which  Mr.  Roberts  quotes  the 
phrase  these  things  refers  to  the  things  which  the 
Lord  was  partially  explaining  but  which  were  not  to, 
be  fully  revealed  until  the  New  Testament  was  trans- 
lated, and  hence  were  not  at  that  time  to  go  unto  the 
world.  But  this  work  referred  to  as  "the  thing  which 
I  have  commanded  you"  refers  to  the  work  in  hand, 
namely,  the  translation  of  the  Scriptures.  They 
understood  by  the  express  terms  of  the  former  com- 
mandment that  they  were  to  teach  to  all  men  the 
things  prescribed  as  soon  as  they  were  revealed  in 
full. 

In  the  case  of  the  polygamous  revelation,  so  called, 
it  was  kept  secret  after  it  was  revealed  and  in  full 
force.  Exactly  tfre  opposite  prooeduare  from  the  one 
referred  to  in  the  revelation  of  1831. 


APPENDIX.  225 

There  is  nothing  in  what  Mr.  Roberts  has  quoted 
to  justify  the  keeping  of  anything  secret  which  affects 
the  souls  of  men  when  the  time  for  the  accomplish- 
ment of  the  work  arrives. 

In  Appendix  2,  page  155,  he  seeks  to  justify  the 
Church  authorities  in  declining  to  discuss  the  issues 
between  them  and  the  Reorganization,  and  again 
quotes  that  carefully  revised  history  by  President 
Brigham  Young,  to  show  that  Joseph  Smith  told  the 
elders  not  to  contend  with  others  on  account  of  their 
faith  or  systems  of  religion,  but  to  pursue  a  steady 
course.  An  open,  fair  discussion  of  differences,  and 
a  contention  with  others  on  account  of  their  faith  or 
systems  of  religion,  are  quite  different  things.  This 
did  not  forbid  discussion  held  in  the  proper  spirit  of 
discussion.  It  was  not  so  understood  at  the  time,  if 
indeed  Joseph  Smith  ever  said  it;  for  the  elders  at 
that  time  did  meet  all  who  cared  to  differ  from  them 
in  discussion.  Few  if  any  opportunities  of  the  kind 
were  ever  declined.  This  shows  that  it  was  not  their 
understanding  that  debates  were  forbidden. 

But  Mr.  Roberts  says : 

Though  there  may  be  times  and  circumstances  when  public 
debate  would  be  proper — and  at  such  times  and  places  the  elders 
of  the  Church  will  not  be  found  wanting  in  the  courage  neces- 
sary to  defend  the  truth. 

It  is  peculiar,  however,  that  the  times  and  circum- 
stances are  always  propitious  when  these  Utah  repre- 
sentatives meet  the  sectarian  world;  but  entirely 
unpropitious  when  it  becomes  necessary  to  discuss 
with  the1  representatives  of  the  Reorganization. 

Mr.  Roberts  closes  with  the  testimony  of  President 


226  APPENDIX. 

Wilford  Woodruff.  I  have  already  noticed  that  in  my 
former  treatise,  and  showed  that  he  differed  from  the 
record  in  important  particulars;  and  Mr.  Roberts  has 
not  undertaken  a  defense.  I  therefore  leave  the  mat- 
ter for  the  consideration  of  the  reader  without  further 
comment  on  this  point. 

If  in  anything  we  are  surprised  at  Mr.  Roberts' 
attempt  to  reply  to  our  criticism,  it  is  that  the  weak- 
ness of  his  position  becomes  more  apparent,  and  we 
are  more  than  ever  convinced  of  the  soundness  of  the 
position  of  the  Reorganization. 

Mr.  Roberts  in  the  course  of  his  remarks  throws 
out  insinuations  that  we  have  abandoned  certain 
positions  because  we  did  not  defend  all  the  argu- 
ments made  by  representatives  of  the  Reorganiza- 
tion. Personally  we  have  abandoned  no  position 
taken  in  the  former  book.  It  can  hardly  be  expected 
of  us,  nor  would  Roberts  be  willing  to  place  himself 
in  that  attitude,  to  defend  all  the  arguments  made  by 
parties  on  his  side  of  the  question.  It  is  not  always, 
however,  because  we  are  not  willing  to  defend  that 
we  have  kept  silent.  Sometimes  defense  was  not 
needed.  Arguments  may  be  fallacious ;  men  may  in 
their  zeal  strain  texts  to  apply  them  where  we  do  not 
see  the  application ;  but  after  all  and  the  most  that 
can  be  said,  the  position  occupied  by  the  Reorgani- 
zation is  invulnerable;  and  should  the  policy  of  the 
Reorganization  continue  to  be  in  harmony  with  the 
foundations  laid  and  the  positions  occupied  by  its 
early  defenders  it  can  not  fail  of  success. 

I  submit  this  brief  review,  praying  that  the  bless- 
ing of  God  may  attend  it;  that  light  and  liberty 


APPENDIX.  227 

may  come  to  those  who  read,  together  with  the 
courage  of  conviction,  that  they  may  henceforth 
stand  for  the  right  and  the  truth. 


BANCROFT 
LIBRARY 


INDEX. 


Account  of  meeting,  7. 

Adam-God,  theory  of,  taught,  123, 
124,  145. 

Adams,  G.  J.,  connected  with 
Wm.  Smith,  18 ;  elation  of,  47 ; 
on  succession,  47,  48. 

Additional  correspondence,  149. 

Amboy  Conference,  complaint 
filed  against,  121. 

Answers  insisted  upon,  62. 

Apostasy  to  take  place,  90. 

Apostleship,  senior  of,  to  pre- 
side, 28. 

Apostolic  authority,  of  Reorgani- 
zation, 62;  renewal  of,  141. 

Approval  of  church  necessary,  31. 

Arizona,  colonies  formed  in,  93. 

Authority,  prepared  for  defense 
of,  62;  command  of  God  suffi- 
cient, 143. 

Baldwin  Caleb,  not  on  record, 40. 

Baptism,  for  the  dead,  95;  legal 
and  sufficient,  118. 

Beeman,  Alva,  ordination  of,  155, 
156. 

Bennett,  J.  C.,  conspiracy  of.  8. 

Benson,  E.  T.,  dispatched  to  meet 
companies,  116;  present  at  re- 
organization, 119;  received  into 
Twelve,  121. 

Biography  of  Anson  Call,  88. 

Bishop,  law  of  lineage  appertain- 
ing to,  50. 

Blessing  of  Joseph  Smith,  41,  43- 
48,  132. 

Blood  atonement  taught  by 
Young  and  Grant,  126-128,  145. 

Bond,  Ira,  ordination  of,  156. 

Briggs,  J.  W.,  priesthood  of,  28; 
revelation  to,  134;  instruction 
to,  134,  137. 

Butterfield.  Josiah,  cut  off  the 
church,  122. 

Calhoun,  J.  C.,  letter  to,  55,  56. 


Call,  Anson,  biography  of,  88. 

Cannon,  Abram,  position  of,  53; 
ordination  of,  157. 

Cannon,  G.  Q..  testimony  of  9; 
sermon  of,  129. 

Carlin,  Gov.,  conspiracy  of,  8. 

Carter,  J.  H.,  testimony  of,  48. 

Challenge,  acceptance  of,  57. 

Christ,  concerning  birth  of,  124. 

Church,  where  is  it — who  repre- 
sents it,  5;  satisfied  with  Rig- 
don,  8;  approval  of  necessary, 
31;  disorganization  of,  68;  re- 
jection of,  68,  69 ;  held  together, 
87;  numerical  strength  of,  59, 
87 ;  to  be  driven  West,  88,  91 ; 
remove  to  Rocky  Mountains, 
88-91. 

Clark,  J.  B.,  letter  of,  153. 

Clawson,  H.  B.,  statement  of,  129. 

Code  of  good  morals,  Joseph 
Smith  pledged  to,  32,  33 ;  Reor- 
ganization adheres  to,  138. 

Colorado,  colonies  formed  in,  93. 

Committees  to  select  Twelve,  141, 
142. 

Conference  of  October,  1843,  8;  at 
Amboy,  121. 

Conspiracy  of  Carlin,  et  al.,  8. 

Correspondence,  of  Carlin,  et  al., 
8;  between  Smith  and  Rich- 
ards, 59-61. 

Counterfeit,  Reorganized  Church 
a,  84. 

Cowdery,  Oliver,  apostolic  au- 
thority of,  63 ;  to  select  Twelve 
— ordains  them,  141. 

Cowdery,  William,  ordination  of, 
155,  156. 

Credit  attaches  to  Prophet.  90. 

Criminal  record,  glory  of,  99. 

Dealings  of  God,  history  of,  10. 
Debts,  Young's  teaching  concern- 
ing, 124,  125. 
Derry,  Charles,  testimony  of,  48. 


INDEX. 


229 


Deseret  News,  evasive  answers 
of,  61,  62;  statement  of,  129; 
letters  of,  150,  151 ;  should  re- 
tract, 159. 


Edict  not  enforced  without  con- 
sent, 81. 

Eldredge,  H.  S.,  ordination  of, 
157. 

Endowments  for  the  dead,  95. 

Expelled  without  trial,  122. 


Family  chosen  of  God  rejected, 

131. 
First  Presidency,  what  need  have 

they  for,  83. 
Fjelsted,  Daniel,    ordination  of, 

157. 

•Gates,  Jacob,  ordination  of,  157. 

Gaulter,  H.  E.,  testimony  of,  48. 

Gaulter,  Louis,  testimony  of,  48. 

Gospel  Herald  attacks  Lyman 
Wight,  37-39. 

Grant,  J.  M.,  on  blood  atone- 
ment, 127;  ordination  of,  157. 

Grant,  H.  J.,  position  of,  53. 

Gurley,  Z.  H.,  Sen.,  revelation 
to,  34;  authority  of,  63. 

Harris,  Martin,  added  to  commit- 
tee—ordains, 141. 

Hewett,  Richard,  letter  of,  to  J. 
J.  Strang,  24,  25. 

High  Council,  changes  made  in, 
122 ;  Marks  President  of,  142. 

History,  added  to  —  misrepre- 
sented, 8 ;  of  God's  dealings,  10. 

Holy  Scriptures,  preservation  of, 
139;  property  of  Reorganiza- 
tion, 140. 

Hyde,  Orson,  suspended  from  of- 
fice—restored, 16 ;  challenged  by 
Strang— reply  of,  26,  27 ;  quotes 
rule  to  test  revelations,  81; 
statement  of,  81,  82;  in  the 
East,  114;  position  of  on  rebap- 
tism,  117,  118. 

Idaho,  colonies  formed  in,  93. 
Improvement    Associations,    es- 
tablishing of,  93. 


Independence   Temple,    building 

of,  97. 
Inspired  Translation,  on  order  of ' 

priesthood,  55. 
Isaiah,  prophecy  of,  92. 
Issue,  rests  upon  what  done  and 

how    done,    79;    the   real,    85; 

clearly  defined,  155. 


Jaques,  John,  signs  for  Richards, 
61. 

Jensen,  Andrew,  statement  of, 
97;  Historical  Record  of,  156. 

"Josephite"  contention  sus- 
tained, 159. 


Kay,  James,  letter  of,  18. 

Key  doctrine,  legitimate  results 
of,  145. 

Keys,  belong  to  Presidency,  44, 
134;  not  taken  by  Joseph,  76; 
definition  of,  77,  78 ;  interpreta- 
tion of,  78;  bestowed  on  the 
Twelve,  80-83. 

Kimball,  H.  C.,  in  the  East,  114; 
rebaptized— reordained,  116;  at- 
tends council  —  chosen  coun- 
selor, 119. 

Kirtland  Temple,  building  of,  97; 
title  in  Reorganization,  98. 


Leading  spirits,  Penrose's  asser- 
tion concerning,  101. 

Letter,  Kay  to  Millennial  Star, 
18 ;  Miller  and  Hewett  to  Strang, 
24,  25;  Strang  to  Taylor  and 
Hyde,  26;  Hyde  and  Taylor  to 
Strang,  27 ;  Wight  to  Northern 
Islander,  36 ;  Smith  to  Richards, 
59-61;  Richards  to  Smith,  59; 
Smith  to  Stubbart,  104-111 ;  Luff 
to  Parker,  111-113;  Long  to  Pen- 
rose,  149-151 ;  Deseret  News  to 
Long,  150, 151 ;  Penrose  to  Long, 
152;  Clark  to  Richards,  153; 
Richards  to  Clark,  154. 

Liars,  Young's  claims  concerning, 
125. 

Lineal  priesthood,  17-20,  88,  44,  45, 
50-56;  practiced  by  Utah 
Church,  53. 

Logan,  temple  of,  95,  96,  98. 


230 


INDEX. 


Long,  J.  O.,  letters  of,  149-151. 

Luff,  Joseph,  letter  of  concern- 
ing interview,  111-113. 

Lyman,  Amasa,  addresses  meet- 
ing, 12 ;  rebaptism  and  reordi- 
nation  of,  116;  present  at 
reorganization,  119 ;  offered 
position,  121. 

Lyman,  F.  M.,  position  of,  53. 

Manifesto  issued  by  Woodruff, 
130,  131. 

Manti,  temple  of,  95,  96,  98. 

Marks,  William,  attitude  of,  14; 
authority  of,  63 ;  indorses 
Twelve,  83,  84;  enemy  to  gain 
advantage  over,  84;  a  blessing 
to  many,  84;  removed  from 
position,  122;  appeals  to  writ- 
ten word,  122;  President  of 
High  Council — assists  in  ordi- 
nation, 142. 

McRae,  Alexander,  not  on  record 
— silence  of,  40. 

Meeting,  account  of,  7 ;  of  August 
8,  1844,  9. 

Miller,  George,  introduced  by 
Roberts,  21 ;  letter  of,  to  Strang, 
24;  reason  of,  for  disagreement, 
25 ;  testimony  of,  48,  49 ;  action 
of,  explained,  49,  50;  relegated 
to  second  place,  121 ;  ordination 
of,  156. 

Miller,  U.  G.,  inquiry  of,  61. 

Milliken,  Arthur,  testimony  of, 48. 

Mills.  D.  S.,  testimony  of,  48. 

Moore,  A.  B.,  testimony  of,  48. 

Morgan,  John,  ordination  of,  157. 

Moses,  revelation  to,  10. 

Mountain,  definition  of,  92. 

Nauvoo,  building  of,  88,  91. 
Nauvoo  House,  Smith  family  to 

have  place  in,  42,  43,  45 ;  resting 

place,  42 ;  building  of,  41,  88. 
Nauvoo  Temple,  building  of,  88, 

97. 
Notice,  promise  of,  115 ;  not  given, 

120. 

Officers,  to  be  approved  by 
^church,  81;  return  of  antici- 
pated, 114. 

Olney,  Oliver,  ordination  of,  156. 
Opponents,  extravagance  of,  157. 


Oracles,  given  to  the  church,  76, 
78-80;  definition  of,  77-79. 

Ordination,  necessity  for,  58,  62; 
for  the  dead,  95;  apostles  and 
high  priests  officiate  at,  143. 

Page,  J.  E.,  at  Pittsburg,  114; 
disapproved  of,  121. 

Parker,  R.  J.,  letter  to,  111-113. 

Patriarch,  William  Smith  or- 
dained, 16;  law  of  lineage  ap- 
pertaining to,  50,  52;  mentioned 
by  Young,  86. 

Pattern,  organize  according  to 
original,  86. 

Penitentiary,  ex-convicts  from, 99. 

Penrose,  C.  W.,  echoes  Roberts, 
45;  on  completion  of  temple, 
69-71;  on  release  from  obliga- 
tions, 73;  on  temple  building, 
96 ;  reply  to,  101 ;  assumes  with- 
out proof,  101;  on  order  and 
discipline,  103;  connected  with 
historical  department,  149 ;  let- 
ter of,  152;  position  of,  155; 
tangle  of,  159., 

People  unprepared  for  events,  114. 

Persecution,  Roberts'  claim  con- 
cerning, 98,  99. 

Phelps,  Elder,  addresses  meet- 
ing, 12 ;  moves  to  accept  Twelve, 
116. 

Piercy,  Frederick,  trip  of,  30. 

Pledge  of  Joseph  Smith,  31-33. 

Plural  marriage,  first  indorse- 
ment of,  128. 

Polygamy,  action  of  Reorganiza- 
tion concerning,  100;  introduc- 
tion of,  128;  doomed,  130,  145; 
successor  cannot  accept,  147. 

Pratt.  Orson,  in  the  East,  114; 
rebaptism  and  reordination  of, 
116;  present  at  reorganization, 
119. 

Pratt,  P.  P.,  addresses  meeting, 
12;  on  disorganization,  74;  on 
reorganization,  74 ;  revelation 
to,  75,  79,  85,  91 ;  statement  of, 
80,  82,  91;  in  New  York— re- 
turns to  Nauvoo,  114;  in  Salt 
Lake  Valley,  120. 

Prediction  not  fulfilled,  7. 

President  of  high  priesthood,  or- 
dination to,  143. 

Priesthood,  source  of,  144,  145. 


INDEX. 


231 


Presidency,  keys  of  kingdom  be- 
long to,  44,  45;  in  Joseph's  pos- 
terity, 44,  45. 

Presidents,  ordination  of,  155-158. 

Priesthood  of  apostles,  28. 

Prophetic  character  of  predic- 
tion, 7. 

Quorums,  to  approve  revelations, 
31 ;  set  in  order,  157. 

Rebaptism,  of  Twelve,  116,  117; 
enjoined,  117,  118;  necessity 
for,  117,  118. 

Relief  Societies,  establishing  of, 
93. 

Reordination,  116,  118,  119. 

Reorganization  still  exists,  6;  ab- 
sorbs Wight's  following,  23; 
history  of,  28 ;  stream  of— reso- 
lution of,  34;  not  composed  of 
Strangites  and  Smithites,  35; 
approved,  57,  58;  apostolic  au- 
thority of,  62,  63 ;  necessity  for, 
74, 75,  79, 85,86 ;  a  counterfeit.  84; 
action  of,  100;  leading  spirits 
of,  101,  102;  opposed  to  po- 
lygamy, 129;  position  of,  133, 
134 ;  acknowledged  of  God,  132- 
140;  redeeming  waste  places, 
138;  authority  in,  140-146;  po- 
sition of,  155 ;  president  of,  160. 

Residue,  gathering  of,  136-138. 

Resolution  of  Strangites,  39. 

Revelation,  'to  Moses,  10;  to  be 
approved  by  quorums,  31;  to 
Z.  H.  Gurley,  34;  to  F.  G.  Wil- 
liams, 44;  to  Joseph  Smith,  57; 
Joseph  Smith  to  receive,  78 ;  to 
P.  P.  Pratt,  75,  79;  danger  in, 

Richards,  F.  D.,  publishes  Illus- 
trated Route,  30 ;  letters  of,  59, 
154;  estimate  of,  87;  position 
of,  155;  assertion  of  false,  158; 
acknowledgment  of,  160. 

Richards,  S.  W.,  arranges  with 
Piercy,  30. 

Richards,  Willard,  at  Nauvoo, 
114;  rebaptism  and  reordina- 
tion  of,  116. 

Rigdon,  Sidney,  failure  of,  5 ;  slan- 
dered —  suspected — blamable  — 
exonerated,  8;  meeting  called 
by,  12;  refuses  to  have  name 


presented,  12;  acquiesces,  14;  in 
Pennsylvania— returns  to  Nau- 
voo. 114;  appoints  meeting- 
claims  not  presented,  115;  dis- 
posed of— expelled,  121. 
Roberts,  B.  H.,  his. introduction, 
5 ;  gives  prominence  to  predic- 
tion, 5 ;  assumes  point  at  issue,5 ; 
unenviable  controversialist,  6; 
admits  prediction  is  not  fulfilled, 
6 ;  forms  conclusion  without  evi- 
dence, 6;  quotes  doubtful  au- 
thority, 7;  blunders,  7;  cites 
hearsay,  7;  unkind — his  incen- 
tive^; misrepresents,  8;  tenden- 
•  cies  of,  9 ;  introduces  meeting  of 
August  8,  9;  against  the  record, 
12;  introduces  work  of  Wm. 
Smith— personal  interview,  15 ; 
misstatement  of,  16;  errs  on 
Wm.  Smith,  17,  18;  reckless  as- 
sumption of,  21 ;  errs  on  Lyman 
Wight,  22-24;  strictures  of  on 
Bishop  Miller,  24,  25;  unmanly 
attack  of,  27;  sarcastic  state- 
ment of,  29;  sneers  of,  30; 
unenviable  position  of,  39 ;  pet- 
tifoggery of.  40;  fatal  conces- 
sion of,'  56,  57;  affirmation  of, 
62,  64;  seeks  to  make  contrast, 
63;  against  Woodruff  and 
Staines,  67;  on  completion  of 
temple,  69,  70:  claim  of,  79;  con- 
founds keys  with  oracles,  77; 
unfortunate,  85;  distorts  lan- 
guage, 86;  specifications  of,  86; 
on  Governor  Wells,  103. 

Rocky  Mountains,  prediction  con- 
cerning, 88-91;  people  led  to,  93. 

Rule  established  by  Joseph  Smith, 
31. 

Satan,  transformation  of,  11. 

Salt  Lake,  temple  of,  95-98. 

Salt  Lake  Valley,  strange  events 
in,  116. 

Science  favors  lineal  priesthood, 
52. 

Sealings  for  the  dead,  95. 

Seventies,  selection  of,  94;  pro- 
vision for,  93,  94 ;  presidents  of 
ignored,  94 ;  nine  extra  quorums 
— Brigham's  nominees,  122; 
presidents  of  ordained,  156,  157. 


232 


INDEX. 


Smith,  A.  H.,  on  completion  of 
temple,  70;  discourse  of,  86. 

Smith,  Don  C.,  ordination  of,  155, 
156. 

Smith,  Emma,  testimony  of,  46, 
47;  Holy  Scriptures  in  hands 
of,  139. 

Smith  family,  commendation  of, 
30 ;  their  place,  53. 

Smith,  G.  A.,  in  Michigan,  114; 
rebaptism  and  reordination  of, 
116;  present  at  reorganization, 
119. 

Smith,  Heman  C.,  letters  of, 
59-61. 

Smith,  Hyrum,  successor  ship  of, 
50,  65. 

Smith,  J.  F.,  position  of,  53. 

Smith,  J.  H. ,  position  of,  53. 

Smith,  John,  presents  the  Twelve, 
116. 

Smith,  John,  position  of,  53. 

Smith,  Joseph,  (first  President,) 
history  of  added  to,  8 ;  explana- 
tion of,  8;  attends  council  of 
Twelve,  16;  rule  established  by, 
81 ;  words  of  to  be  received,  33; 
blessing  of,  41,  42,  43,  44;  and 
family  to  have  place  in  Nauvoo 
House,  42;  posterity  of,  to  be 
plants  of  renown,  42,  48;  to 
hold  presidency,  44,  45;  on 
priesthood,  53-55 ;  apostolic 
authority  of,  63;  bis  right  to 
appoint  successor,  63-65,  79, 
160;  on  completion  of  temple, 
72 ;  authority  to  receive  revela- 
tions, 78;  language  of,  80,  82, 
83 ;  prophecy  concerning  Rocky 
Mountains,  88-91 ;  writes  to  his 
wife,  90,  91 ;  warning  to  church, 
72,  91 ;  things  written  into  his- 
tory of,  94 ;  not  responsible  for 
departure,  95;  ordained  Presi- 
dent, 143,  157,  158. 

Smith,  Joseph,  (second  Presi- 
dent,) received  by  Wight's  fol- 
lowers, 23;  enterprises  of,  29; 
and  family,  reputation  of,  30; 
his  speech  of  acceptance  — 
pledge  of,  31 ;  power  by  which 
dictated,  32;  acquainted  with 
associates,  32;  blessings  of,  89, 
40,  45-48,  132;  statement  of,  40; 
calling  of,  41 ;  appointed  by  his 


father,  45-49;  testimony  of,  46; 
revelation  to  —  autobiography 
of,  57;  ordination  of,  62;  on 
completion  of  temple,  70 ;  inter- 
viewed by  Spencer,  et  al.,  103- 
113;  proceedings  of,  132;  his 
call  to  scattered  saints,  138,  139; 
ordination  of,  142,  146 ;  teaching 
of,  146-148 ;  Prophet  and  Presi- 
dent, 148;  ordained  President, 
158 ;  requisites  of,  160. 

Smith,  Lucy,  Roberts'  attempt  to 
convict,  19 ;  testimony  of,  48. 

Smith,  Sylvester,  ordination  of, 
156. 

Smith,  William,  failure  of,  5;  his 
work  introduced,  15 ;  suspended 
from  office — restored,  16;  or- 
dained Patriarch,  16;  commen- 
dation of,  17 ;  on  lineal  priest- 
hood, 17,  18,  20,  38;  action 
against,  18,  19 ;  on  disorganiza- 
tion, 18,  74;  in  the  East,  114; 
disapproval  of,  121. 

Snider,  John,  removed  from 
building  committee,  122. 

Snow,  Lorenzo,  ordination  of,  59, 
62 ;  not  ordained,  143. 

Spencer,  S.  G.,  interview  with, 
103-113;  statements  of  conflict, 
104;  seeks  to  find  conflict,  113. 

Spirit  enables  men  to  develop,  10. 

Staines,  W.  C.,  testimony  of,  10; 
against  Roberts,  67. 

Stakes  of  Zion,  establishing  of, 
93. 

Statement,  not  significant,  5 ;  evi- 
dence of  not  complete,  6;  of 
Brigham  Young,  80,  82 ;  of  Or- 
son Hyde,  81,  83;  of  Wilford 
Woodruff,  81-83 ;  of  P.  P.  Pratt, 
80-82. 

St.  George,  temple  of,  95,  96,  98. 

Stout,  J.  H.,  inquiry  of,  61. 

Strang,  J.  J.,  failure  of,  5;  work 
of— courage  of,  26;  challenges 
Taylor  and  Hyde,  26,  27;  un- 
manly attack  on,  27. 

Stubbart,  J.  M.,  letter  to,  104. 

Successor,  how  appointed,  63,  64; 
to  be  appointed  by  Joseph,  63- 
65,  79;  teaching  of,  146,  147; 
conditions  of  appointment,  147. 

Sunday  schools,  establishing  of, 
98. 


INDEX. 


Suspended  without  trial,  123. 

Taylor,  John,  editor  and  proprie- 
tor, 17 ;  private  journal  of,  19 ; 
challenged  by  Strang — reply  of, 
26,  27;  ordination  of,  59-62,  154, 
158;  in  Nauvoo,  114;  editor, 
115;  in  Salt  Lake  Valley,  120; 
not  ordained,  143. 

Taylor,  J.  W.,  position  of,  53. 

Taylor.  W.  W.,  ordination  of,  157. 

Teasdale,  George,  on  marriage 
question,  130. 

Temple,  completion  of,  69-72; 
building  of,  69;  of  Logan,  95, 
96,  98;  of  Manti,  95,  96,  98;  of 
St.  George,  71,  95,  96,  98;  of 
Salt  Lake,  95-97;  command- 
ment concerning  building,  96, 
97;  at  Kirtland,  97,  98;  at  Inde- 
pendence, 97;  at  Nauvoo,  97; 
attempt  to  build  without  reve- 
lation, 97. 

Testimony  of  G.  Q.  Cannon,  9;  of 
W.  U.  Staines,  10 ;  of  W.  Wood- 
ruff, 10 ;  of  Lyman  Wight,  36,  37. 

Transformation,  Satan  author  of, 
11 ;  counterpart  of,  11. 

Tullidge  quotes  Woodruff,  116. 

Twelve,  dictation  of.  9 ;  sustaining 
the,  13,  115,  116;  seven  of, 
chosen,  28;  senior  of,  to  pre- 
side, 28;  at  Nauvoo,  29;  next  to 
First  Presidency,  68;  on  com- 
pletion of  temple,  72 ;  authority 
and  mission  of,  75 ;  recognition 
of,  79:  keys  bestowed  upon,  76, 
79-83 ;  indorsed  by  Marks,  83, 
84;  general  epistle  of,  85;  build 
Nauvoo,  etc.,  88;  failed  to 
build,  88;  turn  towards  West, 
88;  seventies  increased  by,  93, 
94;  in  Nauvoo,  114;  rebaptism 
and  reordination  of,  116;  coun- 
cil of,  119 ;  selection  of,  141, 142 ; 
authority  of,  141. 

Unlawful  cohabitation,  action  of 
Reorganization  concerning,  100. 

Utah  authorities,  abominable 
teaching  of,  148. 

Utah,  colonies  formed  in,  93. 

Wells,  Governor,  on  Roberts,  108. 


Whitehead,  James,  testimony  of, 
46-48. 

Whitmer,  David,  to  select  Twelve 
— ordains  them,  141. 

Whitney,  N.  K.,  placed  over  Mil- 
ler, 121. 

Wight,  Lyman,  introduced  by 
Roberts — true  to  Joseph  Smith, 
21 ;  directs  in  pinery  —  visits 
Nauvoo— goes  East — returns  to 
Nauvoo  and  Wisconsin,  22;  fol- 
lowing of— death  of,  23;  pos- 
terity of,  23;  Galveston  News' 
mention  of,  24;  testimony  of, 

86,  37 ;  on  lineal  priesthood,  38, 
89;  attacked  by  Gospel  Herald, 

87,  38 ;  Roberts'  attempted  im- 
peachment of,  39 ;  on  disorgani- 
zation, 74;  in  the  East,  114;  not 
with  the  Twelve,  119,  120;  dis- 
approved    of,     121;     removed 
from  building  committee,  122. 

Wilderness,  church  not  to  flee  to, 
74,  75,  79,  91. 

Williams,  F.  G.,  revelation  to,  44. 

Wisconsin,  Wight  and  Miller  in, 
22,  23. 

Woodruff,  A.  O.,  position  of,  53. 

Woodruff,  Wilford,  testimony  of, 
10,  13;  against  the  record,  13; 
ordination  of,  59-62,  154,  158; 
against  Roberts  and  record,  67 ; 
statement  of,  81-83;  report  of, 
87;  testimony  of,  102;  in  the 
East,  114;  Tullidge  quotes,  116; 
rebaptism  and  reordination  of, 
116 ;  present  at  reorganization, 
119 ;  issues  manifesto,  130,  131 ; 
not  ordained,  143. 

Wyoming,  colonies  formed  In,  93. 

Young,  Brigham,  Jr.,  position  of, 
53. 

Young,  Brigham,  Sen.,  language 
of,  5;  policy  of,  9;  assumes  ap- 
pearance of  Smith,  9;  fraudu- 
lent attitude  of,  10;  assumes 
control  of  meeting,  12 ;  speaks 
— presents  motion,  12;  boastful 
spirit  of,  33;  ambition  of  him- 
self and  successors,  53 ;  ordina- 
tion of,  59-62,  154,  158;  admis- 
sion of,  62;  on  completion  of 
temple,  71;  statements  of,  80; 
signs  general  epistle,  85 ;  on  re- 


INDEX. 


organizing  church,  85;  on  tem- 
ple building,  97,  98 ;  movements 
of— in  the  east,  114;  assumes 
control,  115;  rebaptized,  116; 
counsels  rebaptism,  118;  chosen 
President,  119;  votes  for  him- 
self, 120;  removes  men  from 
office,  121;  repudiates  written 
word,  122 ;  on  Joseph  Smith  and 
keys,  123;  on  Adam-God  and 
birth  of  Christ,  124;  on  debts, 
124, 125;  liars,  thieves,  etc.,  125; 
blood  atonement,  126.  127;  re- 


sponsible  for   polygamy,    128; 

interview    of,    129;    prophesies 

concerning  polygamy,  129,  130; 

proved  a  false  prophet,  131 ;  not 

ordained,  143. 
Young,    Joseph,     ordination   of, 

156. 
Young,  S.  B.,  ordination  of,  157. 

Zarahemla,  reorganization  at,  57, 

132, 133. 

Zion,  redemption  of,  135,  136. 
Zion's  Camp,  work  of,  137. 


•Ill 
mm 


